Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[CrackerJack 0]

oh shit he is crawling and bleeding, I better finnish him off before he sues me *bang*That will teach him to not enter my home *bang* *bang*   

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And then I'd have a higher chance of being physically assaulted out on the street. No thanks.

Huh ? And that´s why ?

Source ? Link ? Statistics ?

...or just some guessing ?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Huh ? And that´s why ?

That often-reported fact that the UK has much higher levels of violent crime (Not "gun crime", I mean violent crime in general). Maybe not in the rest of Europe, but I'll go check.

Quote[/b] ]oh shit he is crawling and bleeding, I better finnish him off before he sues me

No, that's not a smart thing to do. What I meant is that a homeowner preparing to take the first shot is more likely to aim at the torso or head instead of the legs or arms.

[EiZei 0]

AFAIK most studies not funded by biased organizations have found out that street crime and amount of guns does not seem to correlate anywhere.

IMHO much better solution is to create a more equal and peaceful society than a civil cold war. But of course social programs cost money and we cant have to pay taxes do we?

[RooK 0]

That's an idiotic statement, a police officer is meant to stop violent crimes, and crimes involving guns. A citizen is supposed to rely on the police, not on their own guns.

I take it you missed the part about the SCOTUS ruling that police do not do that or have that responsibility?

Quote[/b] ]And have you also read about the people that use guns to their advantage to get into night clubs (sometimes ending in shootouts)? Most of those people aren't criminals, just people who think owning guns equals respect and safety.

Then why don't you call the police on them, that's what they're for according you. You're also applying some stereotype to all firearm owners, which is very far from the truth.

Quote[/b] ]You are just as likely, if not more likely to be killed during a stick-up robbery if you are armed. I was robbed under the threat of a knife once in downtown Stockholm, and had I tried to resist with a gun or a knife of my own I'd be in the ground by now. To me, losing my cellphone and my MP3 player is a good price to pay for my life.

It depends on the situation. Unless you resisted, there is no truely knowing whether you would have been killed or not. It's an assumption. You can also help others when armed, which is another advantage you're overlooking. Most times when a firearm is used to stop a crime, no shots are fired. The suspect usually stops and flees. Isn't that what was needed?

[RooK 0]

AFAIK most studies not funded by biased organizations have found out that street crime and amount of guns does not seem to correlate anywhere.

IMHO much better solution is to create a more equal and peaceful society than a civil cold war. But of course social programs cost money and we cant have to pay taxes do we?

Treating the source of the problem instead of the side effect is too easy of a solution. Apparently you must first strip a person's right away and then punish them. When that fails you do it to something else.

[GoOB 0]

That's an idiotic statement, a police officer is meant to stop violent crimes, and crimes involving guns. A citizen is supposed to rely on the police, not on their own guns.

I take it you missed the part about the SCOTUS ruling that police do not do that or have that responsibility?

Quote[/b] ]And have you also read about the people that use guns to their advantage to get into night clubs (sometimes ending in shootouts)? Most of those people aren't criminals, just people who think owning guns equals respect and safety.

Then why don't you call the police on them, that's what they're for according you. You're also applying some stereotype to all firearm owners, which is very far from the truth.

Quote[/b] ]You are just as likely, if not more likely to be killed during a stick-up robbery if you are armed. I was robbed under the threat of a knife once in downtown Stockholm, and had I tried to resist with a gun or a knife of my own I'd be in the ground by now. To me, losing my cellphone and my MP3 player is a good price to pay for my life.

It depends on the situation. Unless you resisted, there is no truely knowing whether you would have been killed or not. It's an assumption. You can also help others when armed, which is another advantage you're overlooking. Most times when a firearm is used to stop a crime, no shots are fired. The suspect usually stops and flees. Isn't that what was needed?

1: What is the "SCOTUS". the police acts on the orders of the ministry of justice to work activly to prevent violence and to arrest people using it and make sure they are put to trial.

What you are saying is that the police is supposed to just hang out, eat some dounuts and assume that everyone is carrying guns to protect themselves?

2: Yes, it is illegal to brandish a firearm on the streets. Atleast in Sweden, and the police IS being payed to prevent/stop these crimes. And I am not applying some stereotype to all firearm owners with my statement. Some use their guns in this way, and some use them to shoot burglars, both are non-acceptable uses of firearms according to me.

3: Ofcourse there is no way of knowing, but with a knife at my throat, and four people standing around me. I doubt they would be glad if I reached for a gun, or a knife. I would rather be certain of surviving at the expense of losing two material items, than having my throat slit and bleeding to death in the cold Stockholm streets after foolishly trying to reach for a firearm.

And please... The type of vigilantism you seem to be standing for doesn't work. If the other part is armed, you can kiss your ass goodbye. And you would most likely go to prison, atleast under Swedish law.

As I see it now, it's impossible to have a debate with an American on this issue. Considering our completly different laws about guns and what they are for. In my opinion, a society where the people have to arm themselves to feel safe. Need to rethink their values and entire system of justice.

[RooK 0]

1: What is the "SCOTUS". the police acts on the orders of the ministry of justice to work activly to prevent violence and to arrest people using it and make sure they are put to trial.

You're applying Swedish law to the US. It doesn't apply here. The SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the US, think the highest form of judiciary power. The police here are a public service to assist in handling/preventing crime, they aren't your body guards.

Quote[/b] ]What you are saying is that the police is supposed to just hang out, eat some dounuts and assume that everyone is carrying guns to protect themselves?

See above. They clean up the mess after a crime has happened, very rarily do they stop it "in progress." During this time which they are not present, you are responsible for your own life.

Quote[/b] ]2: Yes, it is illegal to brandish a firearm on the streets. Atleast in Sweden, and the police IS being payed to prevent/stop these crimes. And I am not applying some stereotype to all firearm owners with my statement. Some use their guns in this way, and some use them to shoot burglars, both are non-acceptable uses of firearms according to me.

Here is depends on what 'brandish' is. Open carry of a handgun is legal in my state. I can walk around on any public property with a handgun on my hip and it is perfectly legal. If someone is acting in a dangerous matter, then punish them by the law, not those abiding by it. That last is an acceptable means for firearm use in my country, your opinion doesn't matter.

Quote[/b] ]3: Ofcourse there is no way of knowing, but with a knife at my throat, and four people standing around me. I doubt they would be glad if I reached for a gun, or a knife. I would rather be certain of surviving at the expense of losing two material items, than having my throat slit and bleeding to death in the cold Stockholm streets after foolishly trying to reach for a firearm.

Having a firearm in your possession doesn't always mean it's a good idea to use it. Knowing such is part of being a responsible gun owner. Besides, it's your life, you should be able to make that choice for yourself. Let others make up their own mind and control their own life.

Quote[/b] ]And please... The type of vigilantism you seem to be standing for doesn't work. If the other part is armed, you can kiss your ass goodbye. And you would most likely go to prison, atleast under Swedish law.

This isn't Sweden. We have the right, by being free-born humans in the US, to defend our life with deadly force if neccessary. I don't stand for vigilantism, I stand for protecting yourself and those around you. In the US, we still believe in personal rights and the fact that a criminal is a criminal, despite whether he was killed during the act of a crime.

Quote[/b] ]As I see it now, it's impossible to have a debate with an American on this issue. Considering our completly different laws about guns and what they are for. In my opinion, a society where the people have to arm themselves to feel safe. Need to rethink their values and entire system of justice.

I don't need them to "feel safe," I just want them so that I know I am prepared for any situation I might face. If a civilian who owns a firearm for self-defense is paranoid, why does a police officer carry one when conducting routine traffic stops? Is he paranoid or just being prepared? Same concept.

[GoOB 0]

In many countries police officers do not carry guns when patrolling the streets and highways of their countries (Norway, UK). And personally I find that to be quite acceptable indeed.

And yes, I am perfectly aware that we aren't talking about the issues with this in Sweden. I am just using the situation here, with the situation in the US. And as I said, that is why I really can't debate this with an American. Keeping guns to be "prepared" is again, in my opinion, and the opinion of Swedish laws not acceptable.

But in the US it seems to be perfectly normal killing a guy because he is trying to steal some silverware. But hey, he was a criminal. So you did society a service, right?

[RooK 0]

Does shooting someone who's stealing silverware sound like self-defense? Use some common sense.

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]3: Ofcourse there is no way of knowing, but with a knife at my throat, and four people standing around me. I doubt they would be glad if I reached for a gun, or a knife. I would rather be certain of surviving at the expense of losing two material items, than having my throat slit and bleeding to death in the cold Stockholm streets after foolishly trying to reach for a firearm.

Were they ninjas?

If five guys start walking towards me looking like they are going to rob me I'm not going to just stand there.

[GoOB 0]

Does shooting someone who's stealing silverware sound like self-defense? Use some common sense.

No it doesn't, your silverware being stolen has no relevance to your own personal health. Again, according to my personal values. I would rather have the burglar eating with my silverware, than shooting him to death.

[RooK 0]

Does shooting someone who's stealing silverware sound like self-defense? Use some common sense.

No it doesn't, your silverware being stolen has no relevance to your own personal health. Again, according to my personal values. I would rather have the burglar eating with my silverware, than shooting him to death.

Then you're on par with most Americans. Now, if he took a knife and started to run at you, then you have every right in the world to respond with deadly force.

[GoOB 0]

Quote[/b] ]3: Ofcourse there is no way of knowing, but with a knife at my throat, and four people standing around me. I doubt they would be glad if I reached for a gun, or a knife. I would rather be certain of surviving at the expense of losing two material items, than having my throat slit and bleeding to death in the cold Stockholm streets after foolishly trying to reach for a firearm.

Were they ninjas?

If five guys start walking towards me looking like they are going to rob me I'm not going to just stand there.

No, they were regular guys. And they didn't "look like they were going to rob me" they looked just like the many people I met out in Stockholm that night.

They just approached me asking for advice on how to reach one of the suburbs by subway, and before I knew it I had a knife at my throat.

EDIT: What would you do? And how do you know who is going to rob you or not?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ralph, that totally went over your head.

i would be going well over my head if i said 'the right to bear arms are infringible and federal gov't is taking it away!'

for those who equate having a gun with an effective self-defense, think of 2 NYPD detectives who were killed by the suspect with their own gun. and many other officer deaths. having guns do not guarantee safety. awareness of situation in surrounding is. having a gun AND the training to utilize it is the key, not just having it.

unfortunately as soon as there is move to have mandatory training, there will be those who say it's first step to eventual regulation.

[DanAK47 1]

A whole 2 detectives?

Well, I know of one person that has been shot by his dog. So all dogs should undergo mandatory firearms training.

And for the earlier point: Just because he doesn't know the acronym "ND", doesn't mean he doesn't know what "shooting when you don't wanna" means.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]In many countries police officers do not carry guns when patrolling the streets and highways of their countries (Norway, UK). And personally I find that to be quite acceptable indeed.

And from this comes the famous "Stop! Or I shall be forced to say 'Stop' again!"

Quote[/b] ]But in the US it seems to be perfectly normal killing a guy because he is trying to steal some silverware.

I don't care if he's stealing or not stealing. The issue with a burglar is that he's violating your home/sanctuary, not what he's trying to steal.

[ralphwiggum 6]

A whole 2 detectives?

yes both detectives

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/memorial.html

Quote[/b] ]Sep 10, 2004

Det.

Robert Parker

02988

67th Precinct

Shot - Investigation

Sep 10, 2004

Det.

Patrick Rafferty

06793

67th Precinct

Shot - Investigation

Quote[/b] ]

Well, I know of one person that has been shot by his dog. So all dogs should undergo mandatory firearms training.

again, use of sarcasm, mispresentation of the event. the incident happened when a man decided to put puppies 'asleep' with his handgun. he held his revolver and held puppies in his arms. one of puppy's paw caught the trigger and the round went off.

Quote[/b] ]And for the earlier point: Just because he doesn't know the acronym "ND", doesn't mean he doesn't know what "shooting when you don't wanna" means.

and just because someone doesn't own a gun, it doesn't make his voice less important in the issue.

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]one of puppy's paw caught the trigger and the round went off.

And of course, this never happens when someone is trying to take your gun.

If you don't own a gun, fine. But if you have never fired one, you really don't know what you are talking about.

That's like me talking about airplane safety.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]one of puppy's paw caught the trigger and the round went off.

And of course, this never happens when someone is trying to take your gun.

If you don't own a gun, fine. But if you have never fired one, you really don't know what you are talking about.

That's like me talking about airplane safety.

Do people not use safeties? Carrying a loaded and cocked weapon is asking for trouble. Think the dog did him a favour to be honest.

[Ares1978 0]

seems like you are now resorting to avoiding/dodging manouver instead of debating, and with that i see no point of having a discussion. But I'll remember the great comments by you, especially ones that related to democracy, and not knowing abbreviation ND, which you would have known if you were genuinely interested in safety, and the logic of 'one's son is same as the father'.

Exactly what you have been doing for most of this discussion and it's pretty boring.

About ND and other abbreviations, if I ask you to HV, what would you say?

ps. It's AD, not ND.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Huh ? And that´s why ?

That often-reported fact that the UK has much higher levels of violent crime (Not "gun crime", I mean violent crime in general). Maybe not in the rest of Europe, but I'll go check.

Bullshit. Murders per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

United States 0.04 per 1000 people

United Kingdom 0.01 per 1000 people

Four times more murders per capita in the US compared to the UK.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap

Rapes (per capita)

United States 0.30 per 1000 people

United Kingdom 0.14 per 1000 people

Twice as many rapes per capita in the US.

What you are refering to is the ambiguous term "crime rate", which is useless for comparing countries since every country calculates it differently. For instance in the EU every reported crime is entered in the statistics while in the US it is entered when somebody is convicted. Also if there are multiple crimes, in the EU they are listed as separate instances while in the US they are entered as one. So the numbers are simply not comparable. (source, in Swedish).

Hence when you look at "crime rates" internationally, like this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap

you get absurdities like Denmark having a crime rate that is five times the one in Russia and ten times the one in Mexico or twenty times the one in Colombia

[RooK 0]

No, AD and ND both exist. AD is when the firearm malfunctions, ND is when the person malfunctions.

How can a puppy set off a revolver? Unless it was already cocked, their trigger pulls are in the 10lb range, which is from light for those that have experienced it. Either way, definately an ND due to stupidity.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]ps. It's AD, not ND.

So much for your knowledge on firearms...

[Ares1978 0]

No, AD and ND both exist.  AD is when the firearm malfunctions, ND is when the person malfunctions.

No, AD describes any given situation where the user "malfunctions". There's nothing A when the firearm malfunctions and D:s. Apparently ND is nothing more than the PC version of AD.