NationStates Jolt Archive

From another thread:
"is it not the rights of the citizenery not to everyday face the risk of facing a gunwielding lunatic who could very well kill them?"

No, Borgoa.

You have a right to defend yourself. He has a right to a trial if he commits that crime. And we have a right to sue him for damages on top of his criminal punishment.

Most gunwielding people do not ever commit an act of violence. There are several hundred million guns in active use in the US and the number of people murdered by guns (not suicides, not accidents) is not as high as people would have you believe.

So far, even the Small Arms Survey (a group that is anti-gun) says that there is no direct link they can prove between the rate of firearm ownership and the rate of firearm murders.

Even in the US, 93 percent of violent crime is committed WITHOUT a gun.

So even if you could achieve the miracle of No Guns in the US, it would at best reduce violent crime by seven percent.

Additionally, there are several studies on the use of guns by civilians to stop crimes in progress. They range from an estimate of 60,000 per year to 2.5 million per year. So, if there were no guns, those crimes would occur. Which means that the 7 percent we just gained would probably be wiped out.

This is probably a real effect, as nations which suddenly restrict guns experience increases in violent crime. The same effect is seen in US states that increased their gun restrictions.

US States that liberalize gun possession and concealed carry have all (33 states) shown double digit decreases in violent crime.

So perhaps we would be better off if more people were secretly carrying a gun. Maybe that crazy person would realize that he would be turned into a bloody lead sponge the moment he tried something stupid. But he wouldn't know who in his vicinity had a gun.

He might spend the rest of his life trying to guess.

:D How nice. Never had my name in the topic before.

It does still make me dispare when people endorse guns. I don't think they realise what they endorse.

Oh, and that thing about the bad guy taking your gun and using it on you - it's essentially a myth. It occurs so rarely that it doesn't show up as a statistical effect with civilians.

It does occur with police - but once again so rare.

I live in a fairly wealthy suburb in Virginia where I can wear a gun. Our crime used to be comparable to the nearby wealthy suburb in Maryland where you can't go out of your house with a gun except to the shooting range.

The crime in my area dropped by 33 percent in the first year after they said we could carry concealed with a "shall issue" permit, and it's still dropping. The crime in the Maryland suburb went up by a similar percentage, and it's still climbing.

Now, here in Virginia, you can carry a pistol as long as it's in the open.

Crime is still dropping...

Interviews with arrested felons indicate that they are afraid to start a robbery, rape, or burgle a house because they know a Virginia resident has a high probability of being armed - even if they are alone in the middle of a parking lot at night. They now prefer to take the short drive to Maryland and attack someone who is guaranteed to be unarmed.

I wish I didn't have to endorse guns.

But I've seen how bad some people can be.

I wish I didn't have to endorse guns.

But I've seen how bad some people can be.

So, take them out of circulation!!!!

I realise for USA, this would be a slow process to see a result due to the fact that there are such a large large amount in circulation, but you must endeavour to do it.


You say it helps cut crime, however, in another Anglo-Saxon country, Australia the introduction of tight gun restrictions led to a decline of nearly 30% in the murder rate within two years.

I also say that the fact that guns are legal ( in any place where this is the case, for I don't want this post to degenerate into a USA vs Europe thread!) it means guns can be easily obtained by the criminal elements; e.g. from methods as diverse as simply purchasing one to stealing from a house with guns. If there are no guns in circulation, the criminal elements will find it far more difficult to get their hands on one.

So, take them out of circulation!!!!
The problem being that the criminals are, well, criminals. They can smuggle in guns or buy them illegally, while the average citizen won't have anything.

So, take them out of circulation!!!!

I realise for USA, this would be a slow process to see a result due to the fact that there are such a large large amount in circulation, but you must endeavour to do it.


You say it helps cut crime, however, in another Anglo-Saxon country, Australia the introduction of tight gun restrictions led to a decline of nearly 30% in the murder rate within two years.

I also say that the fact that guns are legal ( in any place where this is the case, for I don't want this post to degenerate into a USA vs Europe thread!) it means guns can be easily obtained by the criminal elements; e.g. from methods as diverse as simply purchasing one to stealing from a house with guns. If there are no guns in circulation, the criminal elements will find it far more difficult to get their hands on one.

Guns can't be stopped any more than drugs. Anyone with access to light machine tools can make a modern firearm.

You're not addressing the problem we have here. 93 percent of violent crime involves NO GUN AT ALL.

Are you saying that if a woman is being raped by an unarmed man, she should have to wait for the police to show up after she's been violated? Are you saying that she should have to submit to her attacker's whims, even though our Justice Department for over 10 years now has said that resisting your attacker raises the odds that you will survive the attack? Are you saying that if she had a gun, it would be a bad thing for her to use it? Are you clinging to the myth that somehow he would take the gun away from her?

Ah, I see. A raped woman is morally superior to a dead rapist.

The problem being that the criminals are, well, criminals. They can smuggle in guns or buy them illegally, while the average citizen won't have anything.

I agree. But this is far far far more complicated, difficult to do when there are none in circulation within the home country. Of course, it will happen, and some criminals will get hold of guns this way. BUT, it will be far far fewer criminals with guns than if they can simply purchase them or obtain them easily in their own proximity.

Guns can't be stopped any more than drugs. Anyone with access to light machine tools can make a modern firearm.

You're not addressing the problem we have here. 93 percent of violent crime involves NO GUN AT ALL.

Are you saying that if a woman is being raped by an unarmed man, she should have to wait for the police to show up after she's been violated? Are you saying that she should have to submit to her attacker's whims, even though our Justice Department for over 10 years now has said that resisting your attacker raises the odds that you will survive the attack? Are you saying that if she had a gun, it would be a bad thing for her to use it? Are you clinging to the myth that somehow he would take the gun away from her?

Ah, I see. A raped woman is morally superior to a dead rapist.

This says more about the quality of the American police force and crime prevention... why should she need to own a gun to prevent this? Perhaps this is a problem, maybe the authorities in USA (and other countries) think that "we will just legalise gun ownership, therefore the citizens have no excuse in not being able to defend themselves, so that means we don't have to try so hard to prevent crime".

Women in central Stockholm don't find the need to carry a gun around with them to prevent themselves being raped. That's a ludicrous scenario.

I agree. But this is far far far more complicated, difficult to do when there are none in circulation within the home country. Of course, it will happen, and some criminals will get hold of guns this way. BUT, it will be far far fewer criminals with guns than if they can simply purchase them or obtain them easily in their own proximity.

The number of guns in circulation in the UK has gone up since the firearm restrictions. The number of gun murders has gone up. And more significantly, the rate of violent crime has gone up - because an unarmed criminal knows that no one will have a gun, short of a farmer in his house.

Guns are illegal in Luxembourg, and have been for a long time. Why do they have nearly the same gun murder rate as the US?

Why has no one been able to prove a link (especially the Small Arms Survey, an anti-gun group) between gun ownership and gun murder rates?

Brazil has very little private gun ownership - and a higher murder rate than the US. Why?

Guns can't be stopped any more than drugs. Anyone with access to light machine tools can make a modern firearm.

You're not addressing the problem we have here. 93 percent of violent crime involves NO GUN AT ALL.

Are you saying that if a woman is being raped by an unarmed man, she should have to wait for the police to show up after she's been violated? Are you saying that she should have to submit to her attacker's whims, even though our Justice Department for over 10 years now has said that resisting your attacker raises the odds that you will survive the attack? Are you saying that if she had a gun, it would be a bad thing for her to use it? Are you clinging to the myth that somehow he would take the gun away from her?

Ah, I see. A raped woman is morally superior to a dead rapist.


That's actually the law in finland. (Apparently, so I was told when arguing for gun rights with Finnish people.)

I love though how anti-gun people always carp about the right to "be safe". There is no right to be safe, it would be impossible to provide.

There is however a right to be "safer." That's where the gun bit comes in.

So, take them out of circulation!!!!

I realise for USA, this would be a slow process to see a result due to the fact that there are such a large large amount in circulation, but you must endeavour to do it.


You say it helps cut crime, however, in another Anglo-Saxon country, Australia the introduction of tight gun restrictions led to a decline of nearly 30% in the murder rate within two years.

I also say that the fact that guns are legal ( in any place where this is the case, for I don't want this post to degenerate into a USA vs Europe thread!) it means guns can be easily obtained by the criminal elements; e.g. from methods as diverse as simply purchasing one to stealing from a house with guns. If there are no guns in circulation, the criminal elements will find it far more difficult to get their hands on one.
7%. At most, that is the amount of crime you would stop. Add in all the crimes that would be commited if guns were taken away and that is not only wiped away but probably increases quite a bit, especially after the criminals in all states that have liberal gun laws realize that once again their potential targets are unarmed. I don't think YOU realize the implications of your statement.

Women in central Stockholm don't find the need to carry a gun around with them to prevent themselves being raped. That's a ludicrous scenario.

Are you actually suggesting that there are no rapes in Stockholm. I find that hard to believe.

And look at london. Its the rape capital of the western world.

I agree. But this is far far far more complicated, difficult to do when there are none in circulation within the home country. Of course, it will happen, and some criminals will get hold of guns this way. BUT, it will be far far fewer criminals with guns than if they can simply purchase them or obtain them easily in their own proximity.

Until you can 100% assure me that no criminal will be able to possibly get a gun, why the heck should I give up mine? Since all you can say is you think it would be harder for a crook to get a gun, you ain't getting mine.

Dead by a bat and ball pean hammer just as easily as a pistol. Except that my 5'1" girlfriend wouldn't be near as intimidating to a mugger wielding a bat as she was when she pulled out her Glock 19. Gun control means a quarter sized shot group. :)

Besides, I disagree it would be noticably more difficult for criminals to get a gun. There are more illegal guns on the street now, after many many gun control laws have been passed, than ever before. Now, if we just enforeced the laws we have on the books, things might get a little crowded in prisons, but we'd have fewer problems on the streets.

a note on the rape victim with a gun thing...

in our self defense class we're urged not to use conventional weapons against attackers. in case the attacker takes our gun or knife away, he could use it against the intended victim. this is why car keys in the fists and airhorns and the like are a better idea...

and at any rate, the u.s. is fucked up with guns. canada has more guns per capita and a much much lower gun death rate per capita. there's something screwy going on with you guys.

I think much of gun ownership debate is idiotic and ill-informed, for the simple reason that there is always the unstated assumption that all cultures are identical.

They are not.

In one country, everyone can have assault rifles given to them free of charge by the government, and virtually no gun crime.

In another, people can be free to purchase them and kill as many people as die in a typical low-intensity civil conflict.

In yet another you can have restrictions on gun ownership, and rampant gun crime.

And in yet another, you can have similar restrictions and very little gun crime.

These differences stem from the fact that OMFG every society is unique!!! and attempts at forcing one solution on all of them as if they are identical are dumbass.

Ah, I see. A raped woman is morally superior to a dead rapist.
What, you've never heard the following:

A woman raped and strangled with her own panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.


At least, that's what Feinstien and Boxer would like you to think.

a note on the rape victim with a gun thing...

in our self defense class we're urged not to use conventional weapons against attackers. in case the attacker takes our gun or knife away, he could use it against the intended victim. this is why car keys in the fists and airhorns and the like are a better idea...

and at any rate, the u.s. is fucked up with guns. canada has more guns per capita and a much much lower gun death rate per capita. there's something screwy going on with you guys.
Take out purely the inner city black population and their contribution to gun murders and our gun murder rate actually drops much closer to yours. The overall does as well, I believe.

Take out purely the inner city black population and their contribution to gun murders and our gun murder rate actually drops much closer to yours. The overall does as well, I believe.
LOL, I was waiting to see who would blame gun crime on blacks and jews... :rolleyes:

The number of guns in circulation in the UK has gone up since the firearm restrictions. The number of gun murders has gone up. And more significantly, the rate of violent crime has gone up - because an unarmed criminal knows that no one will have a gun, short of a farmer in his house.

Guns are illegal in Luxembourg, and have been for a long time. Why do they have nearly the same gun murder rate as the US?

Why has no one been able to prove a link (especially the Small Arms Survey, an anti-gun group) between gun ownership and gun murder rates?

Brazil has very little private gun ownership - and a higher murder rate than the US. Why?

I can only suggest that perhaps in UK, their efforts to remove guns in circulation (including, and perhaps especially, amongst the criminal fraternity) have not been very stringently undertaken. I would also imagine its part of a wider growing trend in illegal gun activity in UK, that began before the handgun laws there... I don't actually think that even a significant number of Britons held guns anyway, even before the laws against them, for comparisons to be able to be made to the USA case that "gun ownership" prevents crime. It is still true that despite the increasing gun crime in UK, the Netherlands and Great Britain (not incl Northern Ireland) still have some of the lowest rates of gun murder in the industrialised world.

Luxemburg is a strange place, they are also the worst drivers (i.e. have a nasty habit of crashing into things and killing themselves and others, except the Portuguese) in Europe. I think they enjoy being the worst at things ;) But seriously, I don't know, I don't have good information.

In countries such as Australia, where guns have recently been banned and widespread "elimination" of guns in circulation efforts have taken place, real results have been seen in the decrease of gun crimes.

Are you actually suggesting that there are no rapes in Stockholm. I find that hard to believe.

And look at london. Its the rape capital of the western world.

No, I'm not. This is why I didn't suggest it.

LOL, I was waiting to see who would blame gun crime on blacks and jews... :rolleyes:
They have a murder rate of something like 25-29 per 100,000. They only compose 13% or so of the US population. Pure statistics.

That's actually the law in finland. (Apparently, so I was told when arguing for gun rights with Finnish people.)

I love though how anti-gun people always carp about the right to "be safe". There is no right to be safe, it would be impossible to provide.

There is however a right to be "safer." That's where the gun bit comes in.
What is the law in Finland?

Finland's gun laws aren't particularly strict. Their murder rate, for a country of their size, is very high. Hmm....

a note on the rape victim with a gun thing...

in our self defense class we're urged not to use conventional weapons against attackers. in case the attacker takes our gun or knife away, he could use it against the intended victim. this is why car keys in the fists and airhorns and the like are a better idea...

and at any rate, the u.s. is fucked up with guns. canada has more guns per capita and a much much lower gun death rate per capita. there's something screwy going on with you guys.

I would ask for my money back. I think your being given a "confidence" course there, not an actual unarmed combat class.

What, you've never heard the following:

A woman raped and strangled with her own panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.


At least, that's what Feinstien and Boxer would like you to think.
once again, a woman is better off fighting off a potential rapist with her fists, knees, elbows, nails, car keys in the fist, throwing sand in his eye et c than using a gun or a knife which can easily be taken away from her and used against her in an attack.

if i was walking home late at night on a deserted street, i would much rather have a black belt than a gun at my side.

7%. At most, that is the amount of crime you would stop. Add in all the crimes that would be commited if guns were taken away and that is not only wiped away but probably increases quite a bit, especially after the criminals in all states that have liberal gun laws realize that once again their potential targets are unarmed. I don't think YOU realize the implications of your statement.

Assuming your statistic relates to USA, this statement says to me that there must be a whole seperate issue for USA in the general law enforcement and civil security culture. Or, just the culture in general. Maybe there are simply more people driven to criminality due to the lack of a comprehensive welfare safety net? I really don't claim to know, just my thoughts...

They have a murder rate of something like 25-29 per 100,000. They only compose 13% or so of the US population. Pure statistics.
It is a well-known adage that anyone can find statistics to justify any opinion. So there are statistics which can be used to justify a racist stance. It neither surprises me, nor lends it any credibility.

What is the law in Finland?

Finland's gun laws aren't particularly strict. Their murder rate, for a country of their size, is very high. Hmm....

If you try to associate the rate of gun ownership with the rate of gun murders, you're not going to find an association.

I suggest you go to the website for the Small Arms Survey. They are an anti-gun organization.

They haven't been able to find an association between the two. They also admit that at least in the US, some violent crime is stopped by civilians with guns - anywhere from 60,000 events to 2.5 million events per year depending on whether you believe anti-gun statistics or pro-gun statistics. But in either case, the number is positive.

I would ask for my money back. I think your being given a "confidence" course there, not an actual unarmed combat class.
1. it was free.
2. we were taught unarmed combat. hence the big guys in the padded suits we got to practise on as well as the various methods of breaking holds, where to attack, how to avoid such situations in the first place, what makes people more vulnerable to becoming targets for rapists et c.

once again, a woman is better off fighting off a potential rapist with her fists, knees, elbows, nails, car keys in the fist, throwing sand in his eye et c than using a gun or a knife which can easily be taken away from her and used against her in an attack.

if i was walking home late at night on a deserted street, i would much rather have a black belt than a gun at my side.

100% agree! That's the big danger with gun ownership... if I was an (unarmed) burgler breaking into a house, and saw a gun, I would pick it up. Who knows, when I get upstairs and the householder comes out of their bedroom to challenge me, I might just use it...?

Dakini makes the same point very well in this scenario above. It's the same reason that many Europeans are against the use of armed "sky marshals" on aircraft... it may very well lead to an unarmed hijacker getting hold of the gun...

One interesting note: compare Norway and Sweden - two fairly similar populations (at least more similar than the US is to Sweden).

Norway has roughly twice the rate of gun ownership as Sweden, but only half the rate of gun murders.

I'm not saying that more guns means less crime. But the two are not connected in as simple a manner as you have been led to believe.

And no one can stop the import of guns. You can't stop the import of illegal drugs, much less something far easier and less expensive to produce.

What is the law in Finland?

Finland's gun laws aren't particularly strict. Their murder rate, for a country of their size, is very high. Hmm....

My understanding is that in finland, if a woman kills the rapist, she will most likely be prosecuted for murder, unless she can show that he also intended to kill her.

In other words, they don't think being raped merits the use of deadly force to prevent it.

once again, a woman is better off fighting off a potential rapist with her fists, knees, elbows, nails, car keys in the fist, throwing sand in his eye et c than using a gun or a knife which can easily be taken away from her and used against her in an attack.

if i was walking home late at night on a deserted street, i would much rather have a black belt than a gun at my side.
Height and weight please. A friend of mine is a black belt in karate but he's 4'9" and 128 lbs. I'm 6'2" 209lbs and I can take him down. If your attacker is sufficiently bigger and stronger than you he can take you down, especially if he has any training at all. A quick jab to the solar plexus and you're unable to breathe, after which you're pretty much screwed. A gun takes relatively little training to use efficiently which is why it's called the great equalizer.

My understanding is that in finland, if a woman kills the rapist, she will most likely be prosecuted for murder, unless she can show that he also intended to kill her.

In other words, they don't think being raped merits the use of deadly force to prevent it.

Well, of course, murder is a crime..!! One can use reasonable force to defend oneself of course, but in most cases reasonable force does not equal murder.

I would expect to be prosecuted if I murdered somebody who robbed me without threatening my life.

Height and weight please. A friend of mine is a black belt in karate but he's 4'9" and 128 lbs. I'm 6'2" 209lbs and I can take him down. If your attacker is sufficiently bigger and stronger than you he can take you down, especially if he has any training at all. A quick jab to the solar plexus and you're unable to breathe, after which you're pretty much screwed. A gun takes relatively little training to use efficiently which is why it's called the great equalizer.

And then the tall person ( I assume 6,2 is tall) gets hold of the gun, and fires it. The 4,9 person is dead.

7%. At most, that is the amount of crime you would stop.

7% of total crime. That includes non-violent crime like shoplifting and vandalism. All Anti-gun people here aren't disputing that. They are talking about serious crime. Take murder for example.

In 2003 The total people murdered rate in America was 14,408. Of these 9638 were with firearms. Thats 66% of all murders.

1. it was free.
2. we were taught unarmed combat. hence the big guys in the padded suits we got to practise on as well as the various methods of breaking holds, where to attack, how to avoid such situations in the first place, what makes people more vulnerable to becoming targets for rapists et c.

Well you got what you paid for.

Frankly, I dissaprove of those courses. They instill a false sense of confidence, and just lead people into being less careful about the situations they get into than they otherwise would. To achieve any degree of profiecieny at unarmed combat takes a great degree of physical conditioning and many many hours of practice.

As to rather having a "black belt" than a gun. I could drop any number of unarmed black belts with a gun, and I wouldn't even break a sweat. However, the reason most of these courses advise that you don't carry a weapon, is because they are worried (erroniously I suspect) that you are not prepared to actually use it. Hence it is a liability.

Well, of course, murder is a crime..!! One can use reasonable force to defend oneself of course, but in most cases reasonable force does not equal murder.

I would expect to be prosecuted if I murdered somebody who robbed me without threatening my life.

In most cases where a gun is used to stop a crime, the criminal is not armed with a gun. In the vast majority of these cases, no shots are fired.

No one is hurt, because the criminal runs away.

Isn't that a good outcome?

I've used a gun twice to ward off someone. No one took the gun from me. No one got hurt.

I've also been part of martial arts demonstrations - where they show that you can't beat the man with the gun. In these demonstrations, a skilled black belt demonstrates that a man with a gun who knows what he is doing will kill you before you can disarm him.

They want to dissuade students from thinking that martial arts are a substitute for a gun - it almost never can be.

I've never, ever lost in the demonstration, no matter how inattentive I became, or who was the black belt. Most of the time, I can draw and fire (the gun is empty, but you can hear the hammer fall) before they can touch me.

And then the tall person ( I assume 6,2 is tall) gets hold of the gun, and fires it. The 4,9 person is dead.
Ah, but to do that, you have to get near them. And the gun doesn't need to get near you.

And then the tall person ( I assume 6,2 is tall) gets hold of the gun, and fires it. The 4,9 person is dead.
Highly unlikely. Rarely do you hear of cases in the US where the vic was shot by their own gun. Police, on the other hand, are a different story.

So, take them out of circulation!!!!

I realise for USA, this would be a slow process to see a result due to the fact that there are such a large large amount in circulation, but you must endeavour to do it.


You say it helps cut crime, however, in another Anglo-Saxon country, Australia the introduction of tight gun restrictions led to a decline of nearly 30% in the murder rate within two years.

I also say that the fact that guns are legal ( in any place where this is the case, for I don't want this post to degenerate into a USA vs Europe thread!) it means guns can be easily obtained by the criminal elements; e.g. from methods as diverse as simply purchasing one to stealing from a house with guns. If there are no guns in circulation, the criminal elements will find it far more difficult to get their hands on one.


Yup, because criminals will really stand in line to hand their guns over, just have the police ask them, since they must respect the police, right?

Hey, prohibition worked for alcohol, let's try it for guns! (Wonders what mob will get a serious boost and become an international power as a result of smuggling guns, just likes the mafia did with smuggling booze)

I for one, would not give up my guns peacefully, nor would I stay unarmed long, I'd go out of my way to gain possession of a firearm, legally or not, if the government took away my God given and Constitutionally backed, right to own a gun. Why? Because why should I be unarmed when my attacker could have a knife, a gun of his own, or there could be ten of them.

When a large majority, or even just significant minority, of people, don't believe in banning something, a ban won't work. You'll just create a MAJOR blackmarket for firearms.

I've also been part of martial arts demonstrations - where they show that you can't beat the man with the gun. In these demonstrations, a skilled black belt demonstrates that a man with a gun who knows what he is doing will kill you before you can disarm him.



Wow, that's scary that this is really tought! A real eye-opener.

And then the tall person ( I assume 6,2 is tall) gets hold of the gun, and fires it. The 4,9 person is dead.

I am not a martial artist, but I do demonstrations at various martial arts schools.

No one to date has been able to take the gun from me, or hit me, or hold me before I can drop the hammer on them.

I am not much of an athlete, nor am I large, or unnaturally fast.

In my estimation, I can shoot most people twice before their hands really begin to move if my gun is already out, and once easily if I have to draw and fire.

once again, a woman is better off fighting off a potential rapist with her fists, knees, elbows, nails, car keys in the fist, throwing sand in his eye et c than using a gun or a knife which can easily be taken away from her and used against her in an attack.

if i was walking home late at night on a deserted street, i would much rather have a black belt than a gun at my side.


Now, I actually did hear a well-known anti-gun group say this, "A woman is better off giving her attacker what he wants" they said, "A woman who is the victim of sexual assault, stands a 45% chance of being murdered if she resists... It's better to just give the attack what he wants."

Now see my personal opinion would be, "A woman who drills a 9mm hollow point through her would be rapists head, stands no chance of being raped by that dead loser." (And the law should totally support the right to use lethal force to stop sexual assault)

I am not a martial artist, but I do demonstrations at various martial arts schools.

No one to date has been able to take the gun from me, or hit me, or hold me before I can drop the hammer on them.

I am not much of an athlete, nor am I large, or unnaturally fast.

In my estimation, I can shoot most people twice before their hands really begin to move if my gun is already out, and once easily if I have to draw and fire.

Away from the bitterness of the debate at hand, do you not ever think that it's seriously sad in some way that you live in a place where you have to go to a course that teaches people how to defend themself with a gun?

To me, this doesn't just highlight the need for laws to end this crazy situation, but some other crime prevention methods. Do you have police? Do they do anything? It sounds to me that everything is left in the hands of the citizens and vigilantes.... as the French would say, je n'est comprends pas (excuse the spelling, I never payed so much attention in my French lessons at school!).

Height and weight please. A friend of mine is a black belt in karate but he's 4'9" and 128 lbs. I'm 6'2" 209lbs and I can take him down. If your attacker is sufficiently bigger and stronger than you he can take you down, especially if he has any training at all. A quick jab to the solar plexus and you're unable to breathe, after which you're pretty much screwed. A gun takes relatively little training to use efficiently which is why it's called the great equalizer.
5'8" and 130-140 (haven't checked in some time but that's usually the range) and that's bullshit, either your friend got a black belt at a really crappy place or your'e lying.

i know people who have multiple black belts who have been beaten by more skilled opponenets who were smaller than they were in tournaments.

Well, of course, murder is a crime..!! One can use reasonable force to defend oneself of course, but in most cases reasonable force does not equal murder.

I would expect to be prosecuted if I murdered somebody who robbed me without threatening my life.



Well of course! And rape suddenly isn't a crime? (Yeah, it is, and it is a sick crime) What is reasonable force to stop somebody who is trying to rape or kill you?

Reasonable force is what it takes to stop them, if they need to be dead before they stop, it's reasonable to kill them.

I believe Colt's slogan used to be: "No matter what the others size, I will always equalize," or some such.

And its true. At the end of the day, guns really benefit the weak, not the strong. That's why cops have them.

Now, I actually did hear a well-known anti-gun group say this, "A woman is better off giving her attacker what he wants" they said, "A woman who is the victim of sexual assault, stands a 45% chance of being murdered if she resists... It's better to just give the attack what he wants."

Now see my personal opinion would be, "A woman who drills a 9mm hollow point through her would be rapists head, stands no chance of being raped by that dead loser." (And the law should totally support the right to use lethal force to stop sexual assault)

The US Department of Justice has held since the early 1990s that you're better off resisting your attacker.

Most attackers are going to abuse you if you seem compliant. And the younger the criminal, the more likely you will be abused or killed.

The police teach self-defense courses here to women - they teach you to resist at all costs, because if you don't resist, you're more likely to be killed in addition to being raped.

What I like is that if someone wants to rob you, and you tell them, "I'm a black belt in karate", they probably will continue, as it's unlikely that they will believe you. If you show them your gun, however, it's been my experience that they start running away without a word being spoken.

I'd rather not have to hurt anyone - if showing the gun works, and I don't have to muss up my hair, it's a good thing.

Well, of course, murder is a crime..!! One can use reasonable force to defend oneself of course, but in most cases reasonable force does not equal murder.

I would expect to be prosecuted if I murdered somebody who robbed me without threatening my life.

Well I don't consider shooting someone who is trying to rape you murder, I think it is self defense. Funnily enough, eight hundred years of common law tradition agrees with me.

By your logic, if I wanted to chop your legs off - and made it clear I was not going to kill you - the most you could legally do back to me is try and chop my legs off (or something equal). If you killed me to stop me, you'd be a murderer. That hardly seems well thought out.

Well you got what you paid for.

Frankly, I dissaprove of those courses. They instill a false sense of confidence, and just lead people into being less careful about the situations they get into than they otherwise would. To achieve any degree of profiecieny at unarmed combat takes a great degree of physical conditioning and many many hours of practice.

As to rather having a "black belt" than a gun. I could drop any number of unarmed black belts with a gun, and I wouldn't even break a sweat. However, the reason most of these courses advise that you don't carry a weapon, is because they are worried (erroniously I suspect) that you are not prepared to actually use it. Hence it is a liability.
... it wasn't to instill a false sense of confidence, nor was it encouraging us to take unnecessary risks, quite the contrary, they advised us on how to avoid such situations where we may be at risk and what to do should we find ourselves in such a situation. furthremore, we did have hours of practise... it was an entire semester's class we spent 4 hours a week in the gym practising and an hour a week in a classroom. i'm not saying it provided a great proficiency in unarmed combat, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense that if it's dark and someone comes up behind me unexpectedly, i'm better off trying to fight my way out of it than to reach into my purse while all shaky and nervous and try to grab a gun all the while standing a good chance of dropping it and arming my assailant.

What I like is that if someone wants to rob you, and you tell them, "I'm a black belt in karate", they probably will continue,

And your attacker takes a trip to hospital with a dislocated arm

If you show them your gun, however, it's been my experience that they start running away without a word being spoken.

I'd rather not have to hurt anyone - if showing the gun works, and I don't have to muss up my hair, it's a good thing.

What happens if they pull thier gun first though.

5'8" and 130-140 (haven't checked in some time but that's usually the range) and that's bullshit, either your friend got a black belt at a really crappy place or your'e lying.

i know people who have multiple black belts who have been beaten by more skilled opponenets who were smaller than they were in tournaments.


If your friends with black belts were honest, they would tell you the first rule of unarmed combat is that it is axiomatic that a "good" big guy always beats a "good" small guy.

Plus any form that incorporates "tournaments" into is no good. It spoils the reflexes for actual fighting. (Which is different, there not being scoring and such). This is why you will never see a krav maga tournament, as it can really only be used for fucking the other guy up big time.

5'8" and 130-140 (haven't checked in some time but that's usually the range) and that's bullshit, either your friend got a black belt at a really crappy place or your'e lying.

i know people who have multiple black belts who have been beaten by more skilled opponenets who were smaller than they were in tournaments.
Not really. I'm realtively fast and in pretty good shape. I don't have any formal training but I can take a pretty good beating and still dish it out. If he had studied Aikido I'd probably be screwed. But Karate is about fighting back, not purely using you're opponents' force against them. This means you take hits, and I place my hits well.

And your attacker takes a trip to hospital with a dislocated arm


What happens if they pull thier gun first though.


I really like how you anti-gun types play up the chances karate will work, but that guns won't work for (insert reason here)

What chance do you have in an attack if they're armed and you're not?

A gun obviously isn't a magic shield, but would you rather not have one and not even be able to try to use it?

... it wasn't to instill a false sense of confidence, nor was it encouraging us to take unnecessary risks, quite the contrary, they advised us on how to avoid such situations where we may be at risk and what to do should we find ourselves in such a situation. furthremore, we did have hours of practise... it was an entire semester's class we spent 4 hours a week in the gym practising and an hour a week in a classroom. i'm not saying it provided a great proficiency in unarmed combat, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense that if it's dark and someone comes up behind me unexpectedly, i'm better off trying to fight my way out of it than to reach into my purse while all shaky and nervous and try to grab a gun all the while standing a good chance of dropping it and arming my assailant.

Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you don't practice and don't go to class.

The whole scenario thing about avoiding or stopping a situation is done in concealed carry classes. You select a holster that's right for you (my wife does not carry in her purse - she carries on her hip). My wife's ex-husband knows all about how fast her gun comes out - and what it's like to look into the barrel of a 357.

This whole thing about inadvertently arming your assailant is a myth. It happens to police far more often than it does to armed civilians.

Of course, in the US, armed civilians legally kill three times as many felons as the police, hit what they're shooting at far more often, and avert more instances of crime without shooting than the police.

If your friends with black belts were honest, they would tell you the first rule of unarmed combat is that it is axiomatic that a "good" big guy always beats a "good" small guy.

Plus any form that incorporates "tournaments" into is no good. It spoils the reflexes for actual fighting. (Which is different, there not being scoring and such). This is why you will never see a krav maga tournament, as it can really only be used for fucking the other guy up big time.
but a great small guy can beat a good big guy.

and some of my friends have gotten seriously injured in tournaments. one of my friends was fighting and got kicked in the head, sinished his match, went to the corner, threw up blood and woke up in the hospital a week later.

Well I don't consider shooting someone who is trying to rape you murder, I think it is self defense. Funnily enough, eight hundred years of common law tradition agrees with me.

By your logic, if I wanted to chop your legs off - and made it clear I was not going to kill you - the most you could legally do back to me is try and chop my legs off (or something equal). If you killed me to stop me, you'd be a murderer. That hardly seems well thought out.

If you tried to chop my legs off, I believe that would count as an attempt to kill me, so I'm sure the authorities and courts would see that as this.. and therefore, the reasonable self-defence response may well involve killing you in this instance.

You must remember, that most of the world does not use the English common law system. You have inherited this from your former colonial power, Great Britain, as have many of her other former colonies. Apart from UK (and possibly Ireland), I am not aware of any other European country that uses common law system.

Two sources of info:

http://www.kc3.com/editorial/40reasons.htm


http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf


Read them, learn something.

What happens if they pull thier gun first though.

There's a seven percent chance that a criminal will have a gun in their attack.

No gun, I win.

If they pull their gun first, statistics show that I still have a 50/50 chance if I initiate the attack while they're still telling me that the robbery has begun. Sometimes better.

A martial artist in such a situation, however, stands a much better chance of being dead.

If you tried to chop my legs off, I believe that would count as an attempt to kill me
Stop right there.
He said:
By your logic, if I wanted to chop your legs off - and made it clear I was not going to kill you -

...i'm better off trying to fight my way out of it than to reach into my purse while all shaky and nervous and try to grab a gun all the while standing a good chance of dropping it and arming my assailant.

Being shaky and nervous will debilitate you in unarmed combat just the same as it will while armed. Your grabs, blocks and strikes become less precise in their placement and less powerful in their execution. If you would be unable to even hold a firearm while perceiving a threat, no knowledge of any martial art is going to save you. Being psychologically prepared to use your weapon/training while remaining calmly aware of yourself and your surroundings is the first weapon you must learn to use.

Years ago, I worked the night shift at a hotel in Seattle. Company policy was no guns, but I had an exemption to that policy in that I could carry my pistol to work and lock in up in my locker once there. One night, I came in the front entrance instead of the back, and went to check a list before heading to my locker. While checking the list, a scraggly mutt of a man came in with a knife and demanded money. I was on the other side of the counter from him and started to laugh.

He kept waving the knife at me and the desk clerk threatening to "cut our throats" if we didn't give him the till. I asked him how he expected to cross the counter before I blew his head off. His reply, "I know the hotel policy, you aren't allowed a gun." (expletives removed for the gentle ears of the readers) Whereupon I pulled out the good ole Glock, pulled the slide back to chamber it and said, "Oops, I guess the boss will have to write me up at your funeral."

Kept him there until the cops came. He actually demanded to them that I be arrested because I brought a gun into the hotel. After that, I was allowed to keep my pistol at my desk in my office instead of in my locker. My boss told me she thought he was gonig for an insanity defence. :)

Now, if I didn't have the Glock, he would have at the very least stolen about three grand. He quite possibly could have hurt one of us as well, or gotten hurt himself if I'd been forced to take him hand to hand.

Conclusion:

Guns in the right hands save lives, even those of the criminals!

Stop right there.
He said:

True, but that wasn't very realistic an example was it.

" good afternoon, do you mind if I seriously injure you by chopping off your legs, I'm not attempting to kill you by removing your legs in a violent mannor, just to chop off your legs"

"oh, in that case, please, be my guest"

:D

or i could just pull the pin on my keychain and wake up the entire neighbourhood while alerting them to my predicament, throw my attacker off by the unexpected noise, take out his knee with one swift kick and run like hell to safety.

True, but that wasn't very realistic an example was it.

" good afternoon, do you mind if I seriously injure you by chopping off your legs, I'm not attempting to kill you by removing your legs in a violent mannor, just to chop off your legs"

"oh, in that case, please, be my guest"

:D
Yeah...
:D

"Go right ahead, I don't use them much anyway. I'm sure you need them more than I do."

It is a well-known adage that anyone can find statistics to justify any opinion. So there are statistics which can be used to justify a racist stance. It neither surprises me, nor lends it any credibility.
Actually it's not really that racist, since for small cities to rural areas for the most part it's the same to in some cases a smaller murder rate than whites. So it has little to do with race itself. Rather it has to do with society. Biiiig difference.

Years ago, I worked the night shift at a hotel in Seattle. Company policy was no guns, but I had an exemption to that policy in that I could carry my pistol to work and lock in up in my locker once there. One night, I came in the front entrance instead of the back, and went to check a list before heading to my locker. While checking the list, a scraggly mutt of a man came in with a knife and demanded money. I was on the other side of the counter from him and started to laugh.

He kept waving the knife at me and the desk clerk threatening to "cut our throats" if we didn't give him the till. I asked him how he expected to cross the counter before I blew his head off. His reply, "I know the hotel policy, you aren't allowed a gun." (expletives removed for the gentle ears of the readers) Whereupon I pulled out the good ole Glock, pulled the slide back to chamber it and said, "Oops, I guess the boss will have to write me up at your funeral."

Kept him there until the cops came. He actually demanded to them that I be arrested because I brought a gun into the hotel. After that, I was allowed to keep my pistol at my desk in my office instead of in my locker. My boss told me she thought he was gonig for an insanity defence. :)

Now, if I didn't have the Glock, he would have at the very least stolen about three grand. He quite possibly could have hurt one of us as well, or gotten hurt himself if I'd been forced to take him hand to hand.

Conclusion:

Guns in the right hands save lives, even those of the criminals!

i'm sure a baseball bat under the counter would have done the same thing. it has a much further reach than a knife unless the guy was weilding a mechete.

or i could just pull the pin on my keychain and wake up the entire neighbourhood while alerting them to my predicament, throw my attacker off by the unexpected noise, take out his knee with one swift kick and run like hell to safety.
In large cities like New York and Chicago you are advised to yell Fire rather the Rape at the top of you're lungs because Fire is much much more likely to get a response.

The other thing you have to realize is that no one is going to take the time to tell you, "I'm going to kill you now."

They may not even intend to kill you. But they're hitting you with a tire iron.

I've had the gun come out and up into high ready when I was just nervous (had a man approach me with a tire iron and ask for money rather forcefully).

Just as he was finishing his sentence, he was looking into the barrel of a gun.

I'm not waiting until he's actually killing me, and I realize, "hey, I think he's trying to kill me".

No, if you step out from behind a car with a tire iron, and your words are, "give me your fucking money", you'll see the muzzle and if you keep moving or talking, you'll be contemplating the hole in your head.

After putting him face down on the ground, I told him I'd be glad to give him some money if he's actually desperate, or take him to the local police station if he needs some other help, or we can all just call it a night and I don't want to see him again.

He was happy with door number three.

but a great small guy can beat a good big guy.

and some of my friends have gotten seriously injured in tournaments. one of my friends was fighting and got kicked in the head, sinished his match, went to the corner, threw up blood and woke up in the hospital a week later.

Granted, if you a Bruce Lee or the like, but the chances of actually being a great small guy are small. Even with untold years of study.

I understand that injuries occur, but they do in rugby as well. My point is, to be completely effective, unarmed combat responses must be virtually automatic. If you spend a lot of time in tournaments, this dulls the response as you focus on the sport (not trying to seriously harm) than the combat. Thus when you actually have to fight, your moves are all screwed. (tournamenty and stuff).

I have nothing against these sports, but that's what they are; sport not fighting in the street for your life. What's more, most people will admit this. Granted, it gives someone an advantage against a fat untrained blob whose never fought, unfortunately many street criminals actually do fight a lot, and therefore are just as prepared (if not more so) than black belts.

or i could just pull the pin on my keychain and wake up the entire neighbourhood while alerting them to my predicament, throw my attacker off by the unexpected noise, take out his knee with one swift kick and run like hell to safety.



Yeah, because we all know that people really rush to help you.


http://web.utk.edu/~wmorgan/psy470/kitty2.htm

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0im1v/donettesteelepsychology/id114.html

In large cities like New York and Chicago you are advised to yell Fire rather the Rape at the top of you're lungs because Fire is much much more likely to get a response.


That is so sadly true.

I really like how you anti-gun types play up the chances karate will work, but that guns won't work for (insert reason here)
That comment was just the end of your hypothecial situation. If an unarmed attacker attacks a trained unarmed attacker the consequnces are obvious.

What chance do you have in an attack if they're armed and you're not?

Zero. If the persons out to kill me. Which, most lightly, he's not.

A gun obviously isn't a magic shield, but would you rather not have one and not even be able to try to use it?
The problem I have is that most pro-gun people assume every crminal is out to kill, kill, kill, no matter what. If a guy robbed me, even with a knife, and I had a gun, I would give him the money. The reason being that this guy isn't looking for a statewide manhunt, he's just looking for my money. Once he has the money, he's gone. Maybe the police catch him, maybe they don't, but I'll come out unharmed. If I pulled the gun, anything could happen. Maybe I'll be in such a panic that I'll forget to turn off the safety, Maybe I'll kill him and be badly traumatised by it, Maybe he has a friend across the road covering him. Its better just to let the police deal with it.

or i could just pull the pin on my keychain and wake up the entire neighbourhood while alerting them to my predicament, throw my attacker off by the unexpected noise, take out his knee with one swift kick and run like hell to safety.
Of course, if you miss with the kick or don't hit precisely right, you're screwed.

That comment was just the end of your hypothecial situation. If an unarmed attacker attacks a trained unarmed attacker the consequnces are obvious.

Zero. If the persons out to kill me. Which, most lightly, he's not.

The problem I have is that most pro-gun people assume every crminal is out to kill, kill, kill, no matter what. If a guy robbed me, even with a knife, and I had a gun, I would give him the money. The reason being that this guy isn't looking for a statewide manhunt, he's just looking for my money. Once he has the money, he's gone. Maybe the police catch him, maybe they don't, but I'll come out unharmed. If I pulled the gun, anything could happen. Maybe I'll be in such a panic that I'll forget to turn off the safety, Maybe I'll kill him and be badly traumatised by it, Maybe he has a friend across the road covering him. Its better just to let the police deal with it.


What if in addition to robbing you, he and his cohorts want to take turns on your wife? Are you going to just tell her, "Don't worry dear, the police will deal with it later."

True, but that wasn't very realistic an example was it.

" good afternoon, do you mind if I seriously injure you by chopping off your legs, I'm not attempting to kill you by removing your legs in a violent mannor, just to chop off your legs"

"oh, in that case, please, be my guest"

:D

No more unrealistic than, "good afternoon, I am going to brutally rape and sodomize you, later I may use a broom handle on your rectum for my own psychopathic amusement, but I will not kill you."

At any rate, I was illustrating the point that sometimes the use of leathal force is perfectly justified, even if you are not under the obvious threat of death.

And FYI, common law applies to everyone. That's why it is common. (Even if other countries don't recognize this, and the stupid doctorine of comity has made our Judges keep that one under their hat.)

In large cities like New York and Chicago you are advised to yell Fire rather the Rape at the top of you're lungs because Fire is much much more likely to get a response.
oh, i'm well aware of that. we also learned that in self defense class.

but a loud noise from such a device would sure bring some attention to my predicament (and it does kinda sound like a fire alarm come to think or it) and it would also most likely distract my attacker who wouldn't be expecting such a sudden, loud noise so that i could fuck up his knee so that he couldnt' chase after me as i run to call the cops and get help.

There's a seven percent chance that a criminal will have a gun in their attack.

No gun, I win.

If they pull their gun first, statistics show that I still have a 50/50 chance if I initiate the attack while they're still telling me that the robbery has begun. Sometimes better.

A martial artist in such a situation, however, stands a much better chance of being dead.

Read my pprevious post about the 7%

or i could just pull the pin on my keychain and wake up the entire neighbourhood while alerting them to my predicament, throw my attacker off by the unexpected noise, take out his knee with one swift kick and run like hell to safety.

You scream "RAPE!"
BLAM! (neighbors hear scream and gunshot)
attacker falls to ground shortly after his brains hit the pavement
Pull out cell phone and call police

In Virginia, this is the new law. Or would you rather muss up your hair trying some fancy footwork, or get winded trying to run?

Its better just to let the police deal with it.
Are you non-american? I ask this because it seems you do not even begin to understand the philosophy behind the US constitution.

i'm sure a baseball bat under the counter would have done the same thing. it has a much further reach than a knife unless the guy was weilding a mechete.

It might have deterred him. The gun did work, though.

This guy picked our hotel to rob in part because he knew we had a no gun policy (even our security guard was armed only with a maglight.) When it turned out his information was false because I happened to go in a different door and check something before putting away my pistole, he actually was offended enough to ask the cops to arrest me. Now. Take that to the next level.

If the criminals know you don't have a gun, what happens to you? Look at the UK for an example. Crime goes up. Not necessarily gun crime. ALL violent crime. We can also point to areas in the US and the world with well known high levels of gun ownership and see lower crime rates. Therefore we can assume taking away guns does not make a population any safer.

Sure, you can point to Australia, where the statistics are being disputed, by the way. But you can point to Switzerland, Virginia, West Virginia and a score of other places to find lower crime rates and more guns.

Information is the key, folks. If people are armed and know how to use their weapons, criminals will go somewhere else. For example, my hotel was never robbed again. :) Crime in Seattle didn't change, but the bad guys knew the skinny white boy at my hotel packed and they robbed other hotels.

What if in addition to robbing you, he and his cohorts want to take turns on your wife? Are you going to just tell her, "Don't worry dear, the police will deal with it later."

If they have cohorts and guns you are screwed, armed or unarmed.

Yeah, because we all know that people really rush to help you.


http://web.utk.edu/~wmorgan/psy470/kitty2.htm

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0im1v/donettesteelepsychology/id114.html
again. loud noise at least wakes everyone up and calls some attention to the situation and there's a good chance this would startle my attacker allowing me to take advantage of his surprise and injure him so that i can flee to safety. i woudln't be out to kill someone for attacking me, just to get the hell out of there.

furthermore, i don't live in new york or some crap. i live in hamilton. want to know how many murders there were here last year? 4. that's it and those were on the other side of town. this city is actually a city where you can walk down the street and if you smile at a total stranger and say "good day" your smile and greeting will be reciprocated, which i think is rather rare for a city of more than half a million.

Are you non-american? I ask this because it seems you do not even begin to understand the philosophy behind the US constitution.
Correct, but I'm heavily armed.

If they have cohorts and guns you are screwed, armed or unarmed.


I know people who, by themselves, used a pistol to stop 4 non-firearms, armed, attackers (they had either blunt objects or knives)

I also know people who used mace to stop 5 attackers, this was very rare, but given the circumstances, it was just the right situation to get it to work (inside a confined area)

I know people who have been in pretty much every imaginable defensive situation, you name it, I probably have a story stored in my head that I've been told.

You scream "RAPE!"
BLAM! (neighbors hear scream and gunshot)
attacker falls to ground shortly after his brains hit the pavement
Pull out cell phone and call police

In Virginia, this is the new law. Or would you rather muss up your hair trying some fancy footwork, or get winded trying to run?
personally, i doubt i coudl live with myself if i killed someone even if this person was trying to kill me.

the most i would do with a gun would be shoot someone in the foot or leg so they wouldn't be able to pursue me.

and yes, i would much rather "muss up my hair" than kill someone. what kind of shallow, moronic asshole would rather preserve their appearance at the cost of someone's life?

Are you non-american? I ask this because it seems you do not even begin to understand the philosophy behind the US constitution.
wasn't the idea behind the right to bear arms to allow for militia to defend the country from the british?

And FYI, common law applies to everyone. That's why it is common. (Even if other countries don't recognize this, and the stupid doctorine of comity has made our Judges keep that one under their hat.)

It just doesn't... it's a completely different system. To say it applies in all countries is just such a random statement. Admitedly, Scandinavian civil law incorporates more elements of Anglo-Saxon common law than the more pure civil law systems of the rest of Europe, but as a system it's still far closer to civil law than common law.

That comment was just the end of your hypothecial situation. If an unarmed attacker attacks a trained unarmed attacker the consequnces are obvious.

Zero. If the persons out to kill me. Which, most lightly, he's not.

The problem I have is that most pro-gun people assume every crminal is out to kill, kill, kill, no matter what. If a guy robbed me, even with a knife, and I had a gun, I would give him the money. The reason being that this guy isn't looking for a statewide manhunt, he's just looking for my money. Once he has the money, he's gone. Maybe the police catch him, maybe they don't, but I'll come out unharmed. If I pulled the gun, anything could happen. Maybe I'll be in such a panic that I'll forget to turn off the safety, Maybe I'll kill him and be badly traumatised by it, Maybe he has a friend across the road covering him. Its better just to let the police deal with it.

It's actually not obvious that a someone trained will always beat somone untrained. Honest martial artists will tell you that there are people out there who have never trained, and never will train, that are just really good at fighting. Believe it or not, sometimes highly trained martial artists get fucked up by dudes who's sole exposure to the martial arts is watching an episode of "Kung fu" when they were kids.

Also, it begs the question, if these martial arts are so deadly, why do we allow just anyone to learn them. By the anti-gun logic, isn't it just figuratively putting another "weapon" into the arsenal of miscreants. Of course the reason that it's no big deal is because everyone knows they just aren't worth that much. (Cf Boxer rebellion).

I also like the way that you side with the criminal, as if his or her involvment in the whole affair is not a choice. They can aviod the risk of being shot by not attacking in the first place. There is always just crime against property when no-one is around. And look where that attitude has got society. In the UK now, burgulars are so brazen that the enter houses in daylight and physically threaten the elderly occupants, knowing there is no fear of physical harm. Frankly if you do that I think your life should be forefit, but that's becuase I care about people.

Plus, if someone is prepared to rape someone, I think it is safe to say that there disregard of the rights of others is already well established. It's only safe to assume that, given the opportunity, they would indeed kill their victim. Not to mention it reduces the number of witnesses.

It just doesn't... it's a completely different system. To say it applies in all countries is just such a random statement. Admitedly, Scandinavian civil law incorporates more elements of Anglo-Saxon common law than the more pure civil law systems of the rest of Europe, but as a system it's still far closer to civil law than common law.


I ws being tongue in cheek. Interestingly enough however, common law is so called, because it is the law that is common to all men, i.e. (applies to everyone). But you are right, it ends with the jurisdiction. Doesn't alter my point about lethal force sometimes being justified even when it is uncertain that the attacker is going to kill you. And at any rate, the precendence should be given to the rights of the victim over the attacker. After all the victim is in that situation unwillingly, not so for the attacker.

wasn't the idea behind the right to bear arms to allow for militia to defend the country from the british?
Um. No. The idea of the right to bear arms is that of a design to give the people a final manner of recourse against a tyrant.

I ws being tongue in cheek. Interestingly enough however, common law is so called, because it is the law that is common to all men, i.e. (applies to everyone). But you are right, it ends with the jurisdiction. Doesn't alter my point about lethal force sometimes being justified even when it is uncertain that the attacker is going to kill you. And at any rate, the precendence should be given to the rights of the victim over the attacker. After all the victim is in that situation unwillingly, not so for the attacker.

I agree, and where it's reasonably agreed that it's unclear whether the attacker is going to kill you, I'm sure it would be decided that it's reasonable force should you have killed in self-defence.

wasn't the idea behind the right to bear arms to allow for militia to defend the country from the british?

Nah, that's just a myth. Historically, the right to bear arms served many purposes, including self defense.

In any event, there it is, we have it, and we are not giving it up. Frankly, the gun issue keeps the dems out of power to a large extent. More than any other issue probably, despite how they spin it.

I agree, and where it's reasonably agreed that it's unclear whether the attacker is going to kill you, I'm sure it would be decided that it's reasonable force should you have killed in self-defence.

Well that's my problem with the finnish approach. After all if someone is prepared to rape you, isn't it fair to assume that they already hold your life in fairly low regard. Similarly if someone threatens you with physical violence to take your wallet. Anyone can say after the fact that they didn't objectively manifest an intent to kill you, but at the time, subjectively, it would be very easy to assume that they do. As such in those cases, use of deadly force seems reasonable to me.

It's actually not obvious that a someone trained will always beat somone untrained. Honest martial artists will tell you that there are people out there who have never trained, and never will train, that are just really good at fighting. Believe it or not, sometimes highly trained martial artists get fucked up by dudes who's sole exposure to the martial arts is watching an episode of "Kung fu" when they were kids.

Possibly. But its also unlightly.

Also, it begs the question, if these martial arts are so deadly, why do we allow just anyone to learn them. By the anti-gun logic, isn't it just figuratively putting another "weapon" into the arsenal of miscreants. Of course the reason that it's no big deal is because everyone knows they just aren't worth that much.

Or perhaps the a martial art takes to much effort and time to learn that the average criminial in the street is unlightly to know it?

(Cf Boxer rebellion).


Whats this?

Or perhaps the a martial art takes to much effort and time to learn that the
I also like the way that you side with the criminal, as if his or her involvment in the whole affair is not a choice. They can aviod the risk of being shot by not attacking in the first place.

I am not siding with the criminal. In this circumstances I would want the criminal caught and punished. I'd also like any stolen things back. I have no patience for those who break the law.

There is always just crime against property when no-one is around. And look where that attitude has got society. In the UK now, burgulars are so brazen that the enter houses in daylight and physically threaten the elderly occupants, knowing there is no fear of physical harm.

why aren't the police being called? Or why aren't attack dogs being bought? Or alarm system ect? Theres plenty of ways to solve this without arming the eldery to the teeth.

Frankly if you do that I think your life should be forefit, but that's becuase I care about people.

Fair enough.

Plus, if someone is prepared to rape someone, I think it is safe to say that there disregard of the rights of others is already well established. It's only safe to assume that, given the opportunity, they would indeed kill their victim. Not to mention it reduces the number of witnesses.

Theres a lot more rapes then murders though, isn't there. Basically If you know how to fight and have mace and yet are being raped, It would be fair enough to say a gun would help you in that situtation.

It's also important to remember that in the US guns have been used to stop 2-3 million crimes a year, and about 95% of the time, the gun didn't even need to be fired. It's just so threatening to the criminal that they stop.

Well that's my problem with the finnish approach. After all if someone is prepared to rape you, isn't it fair to assume that they already hold your life in fairly low regard. Similarly if someone threatens you with physical violence to take your wallet. Anyone can say after the fact that they didn't objectively manifest an intent to kill you, but at the time, subjectively, it would be very easy to assume that they do. As such in those cases, use of deadly force seems reasonable to me.

Well, this is where I disagree. Perhaps, as an American, coming from a country where it's highly likely the robber is armed with a gun (as they are so freely available) and with USA havinge a comparatively high murder rate, and also it sounds a fairly insecure state of public security, you might make this assumption more easily. However, if either situation that you described occured here, it's highly unlikely that it would result in murder.

Sure, rape is very evil. And you have the right to defend yourself. But not to kill.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not Finnish, I'm Swedish... just to clarify in case I sound like I'm being patriotic and defending my national laws. They are our neighbours though, and there are some similarities between our countries. Except, of course, on the sports arena, where we are mortal enemies! :)

It's also important to remember that in the US guns have been used to stop 2-3 million crimes a year, and about 95% of the time, the gun didn't even need to be fired. It's just so threatening to the criminal that they stop.

Link? I may have a rethink if this is true.

Also, it begs the question, if these martial arts are so deadly, why do we allow just anyone to learn them. By the anti-gun logic, isn't it just figuratively putting another "weapon" into the arsenal of miscreants. Of course the reason that it's no big deal is because everyone knows they just aren't worth that much. (Cf Boxer rebellion).

considering that martial arts also tend to teach discipline which ends up affecting more than just their ability to practise the martial art, but also say work and school... and from what i can gather, it teaches people to be responsable with their newfound ability to defend themselves and only use it for such purposes (and the defense of others of course)
thus one who is in martial arts would probably less likely to end up turning to a life of crime and using their abilities to harm innocent people.

why aren't the police being called? Or why aren't attack dogs being bought? Or alarm system ect? Theres plenty of ways to solve this without arming the eldery to the teeth.

"Hello, Mr criminal can I call the police, thank you." At any rate, until we get star trek transporters, the police are just not going to get there in time. Added to this is the fact that the police tend to dawdle on the way to these types of things to aviod confrontation. (They don't admit it but they do).

Also attack dogs are much more dangerous than guns. Many more children get wounded every year by viscous dogs than by guns, and there are a lot more guns that dogs.



Theres a lot more rapes then murders though, isn't there. Basically If you know how to fight and have mace and yet are being raped, It would be fair enough to say a gun would help you in that situtation.

Bottom line is guns stop rapes. This other stuff doesn't. I am on the side of rape prevention.

considering that martial arts also tend to teach discipline which ends up affecting more than just their ability to practise the martial art, but also say work and school... and from what i can gather, it teaches people to be responsable with their newfound ability to defend themselves and only use it for such purposes (and the defense of others of course)
thus one who is in martial arts would probably less likely to end up turning to a life of crime and using their abilities to harm innocent people.

Um, no. Some "martial arts" just teach you to be good at kicking ass. Historically, people have used them for bad things as well as good. I don't see why that would change.

Interestingly enough, you also seem to accept that someone can learn a deadly skill, and they will be "responsible" and "disciplined", unless of course it's the NRA saying it, and it involves handguns.

"Hello, Mr criminal can I call the police, thank you."
My neighbour has a device that she keep on her person at all time. It will, when activated, send a distress call to the local police. There are other answers than guns


At any rate, until we get star trek transporters, the police are just not going to get there in time.
Doesn't matter. Once the alarm is raised any attacker will run for it.

Added to this is the fact that the police tend to dawdle on the way to these types of things to aviod confrontation. (They don't admit it but they do).

heh.

Also attack dogs are much more dangerous than guns. Many more children get wounded every year by viscous dogs than by guns, and there are a lot more guns that dogs.

I can't reply until I find the statistics for the numbers of children kill by dogs.


Bottom line is guns stop rapes. This other stuff doesn't.

You can't make a generlised sweeping statment like that without evidence. Most rape prevention classes tell women to get mace before a gun.

My neighbour has a device that she keep on her person at all time. It will, when activated, send a distress call to the local police. There are other answers than guns



You can't make a generlised sweeping statment like that without evidence. Most rape prevention classes tell women to get mace before a gun.


And the police use teleportation to be by your friend's side instantly, to save her, right?

Or does the criminal just wait until the police arrive?



If that is the case, then most rape prevention classes just give women bad advice, mace can get caught in the wind and fly into your own face. Guns are better.

Doesn't matter. Once the alarm is raised any attacker will run for it.


I have relatives that live fifty miles away from the nearest sherrif's office. Why would the attacked run?

And what if the attackers deliver a few crushing blows with a hammer for calling the police and then run.

Attackers are bad people.

I have relatives that live fifty miles away from the nearest sherrif's office. Why would the attacked run?

And what if the attackers deliver a few crushing blows with a hammer for calling the police and then run.

Attackers are bad people.


I know people who live on isolated rural farms, who is going to help them?

But once the police are called, even though they're still two hours away, the attackers will just flee... Yeah right... (Rolls eyes)