11yr old defends his mother and himself

[dean owens]

big talk from such a small country who's only boarder country is germany. i'm sure if we took a swath that small in parts of the u.s. we could find lower crime rates than you have in denmark.

again, talking about america is difficult. what kind of food do americans eat? depends on what part of the country you're in. how do americans talk? depends on what part of the country you're in. does america have gang problems? depends on what part of the country you're in.

with a country this large and varied, we are going to have problems. i don't think anyone denies that. but reading some posts people make it's as though the whole of the u.s. is like living in compton.

Beeing a bit fed up with hearing the "Same as everywhere" statement, I feel I have to show you US citizens some simple numbers:

Murders (pr. 100.000)
In Denmark 0,8
In USA 5,6

In prison (pr. 100.000)
In Denmark 77
In USA 738

Or: In the US there are 7 times as many murders, and 9 times as many people in prison.


So please don't claim it's the same everywhere,- coz it's simply not true.

 

[Wavex]

If you took the whole of Europe, which compares in terms of size and has over twice the US population (with parts where we speak and eat differently), the rates would still look similar... It's a cultural thing... cowboys/guns is more of a US thing...

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (down the page to "internal comparison")

In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, compared to 1.9 in Canada and 1.0 in Germany. This means that the homicide rate in the United States was nearly three times as high as in Canada and slightly more than five times as high as in Germany.[37][38] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark. Overall the homicide rate in the United States was similar to that of some lesser developed Eastern European countries

Most European countries have a homicide rate (100k ppl) of around 1-2... US is at 5.5

 

[krid80]

I was just clarifying per your comment earlier: "Regardless of your stance on guns in society (of which I am a proponent and owner), being punished for protecting what you have worked hard to build for yourself is just wrong."

No Gov in Europe will punish you if you honestly only protect yourself... they'll punish you if you decide to take the law into your own hands as described above though... like they would in the US too probably.

my point was: a government that lets a situation of self defense go all the way through a trial has already punished you.

 

[dean owens]

now see, that's a much better comparison. thanks david.

i will say i'm trying to process that. because the homicides don't happen from law abiding citizens. and that's always where gun discussions go. why do law abiding citizens need them? and i don't know that the "cowboy" mentality is the issue.

hmmmm. something for my brain to work through in the quite times of the day.

 

[dean owens]

If you took the whole of Europe ... Most European countries have a homicide rate (100k ppl) of around 1-2... US is at 5.5

guess you have to make russia an asian nation for all that to hold true. i was looking through that wiki link... holy mackerel! russia 20! the one i'm most shocked by is jamaica at 32.5

 

[Wavex]

If you mix in the different cultures, the different history of the countries, the different government styles etc... it all kind of makes sense...

Let me give you an anecdote: I grew up and lived for 20 years in France (and I've been all over Europe), and in these 20 years, I had NEVER come across a firearm in real life. Never seen one, never touched one. I move to the US, and within 6 months I saw a AK47, an M16, a shot gun, numerous handguns and rifles... I couldn't believe my eyes!!!

Now, if you consider that there are about as many bad guys for every 100k ppl in EURO or in the US, but the difference is that you can score a gun basically anywhere in the US, doesn't it sound logical that the numbers will look higher where guns are everywhere?

If on top of that you factor in the following:
- universal healthcare in EURO vs rich ppl healthcare in the US
- capitalist (money is the priority = larger gap between social classes) mentality in the US vs socialist (people are the priority) mentality in EURO
- the cowboy history of the US (shoot first, talk later)

It all kind of makes sense doesn't it...

 

[Wavex]

guess you have to make russia an asian nation for all that to hold true. i was looking through that wiki link... holy mackerel! russia 20! the one i'm most shocked by is jamaica at 32.5

Russia is NOT and has NEVER been part of Europe. Why would you have to make it part of asia?

 

[Jez]

my point was: a government that lets a situation of self defense go all the way through a trial has already punished you.

Without the initial investigation, there's no other way to establish the events objectively. As Wavex said, someone has to differentiate between genuine self-defence and a kind of execution. A trial that examines all the evidence is the best place to do that. Of course it'll be traumatic, inconvenient and the rest, but in the cases I linked to originally, the police made the arrests, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was no case to prosecute, so it never came to trial. Even if there were a trial and the defendant was found not guilty, he'd leave with his reputation intact. The alternative, of no case to answer, runs the risk of legitimising murder.

The reason I'm particularly interested in this as a subject is because I am researching incidents of violent crime in post-conflict societies using some of the least developed countries in the world - the bottom billion, as they are known, due to the 1/6 of the the world's population that live in them - and the predisposition to civil war.

What indicators suggest are that countries with the highest rates of violent crime, and the greatest predisposition to relapse into civil war, tend to have the greatest inequalities of wealth, a high incidence of firearms in circulation, and frequently ethnic or racial tension. There are other factors too, but those are the main ones. And while I wouldn't make any kind of comparison between, say, Liberia and the US, those are all factors which are more prevalent in the US than in Europe, and which might go some way to explaining the higher rate of homicide.

 

[Fz6Sa]

Without the initial investigation, there's no other way to establish the events objectively. As Wavex said, someone has to differentiate between genuine self-defence and a kind of execution. A trial that examines all the evidence is the best place to do that. Of course it'll be traumatic, inconvenient and the rest, but in the cases I linked to originally, the police made the arrests, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was no case to prosecute, so it never came to trial. Even if there were a trial and the defendant was found not guilty, he'd leave with his reputation intact. The alternative, of no case to answer, runs the risk of legitimising murder.

The reason I'm particularly interested in this as a subject is because I am researching incidents of violent crime in post-conflict societies using some of the least developed countries in the world - the bottom billion, as they are known, due to the 1/6 of the the world's population that live in them - and the predisposition to civil war.

What indicators suggest are that countries with the highest rates of violent crime, and the greatest predisposition to relapse into civil war, tend to have the greatest inequalities of wealth, a high incidence of firearms in circulation, and frequently ethnic or racial tension. There are other factors too, but those are the main ones. And while I wouldn't make any kind of comparison between, say, Liberia and the US, those are all factors which are more prevalent in the US than in Europe, and which might go some way to explaining the higher rate of homicide.

In my opinion population density is a major factor. No matter what country you look at, you will find a higher crime rate in more densely populated areas.
This would be one of the main differences between say the US and most countries in the European region.

When looking at "The button billion" you have to take into account that the level of control and hence registration is rather low in these areas, so much of the crime and violence will never go on record in these places.

 

[C-bus Biker]

If you mix in the different cultures, the different history of the countries, the different government styles etc... it all kind of makes sense...

Let me give you an anecdote: I grew up and lived for 20 years in France (and I've been all over Europe), and in these 20 years, I had NEVER come across a firearm in real life. Never seen one, never touched one. I move to the US, and within 6 months I saw a AK47, an M16, a shot gun, numerous handguns and rifles... I couldn't believe my eyes!!!

Now, if you consider that there are about as many bad guys for every 100k ppl in EURO or in the US, but the difference is that you can score a gun basically anywhere in the US, doesn't it sound logical that the numbers will look higher where guns are everywhere?

If on top of that you factor in the following:
- universal healthcare in EURO vs rich ppl healthcare in the US
- capitalist (money is the priority = larger gap between social classes) mentality in the US vs socialist (people are the priority) mentality in EURO
- the cowboy history of the US (shoot first, talk later)

It all kind of makes sense doesn't it...

Money as the priority... Ok, money drives progress. Who makes money? Those who work hard to develop a product or service that others desire. Once someone develops a better product or service, the spoils go to them. Then the group who was just overtaken strives to make a better product or service. Socialist societies have no incentive to make things better. What was the last great medical breakthrough to come out of a socialist country? Over the past 100 years or so, how has that un-armed citizenry/socialist thing been going for France? I seem to recall a few capitalist cowboys losing their lives storming various beaches. I'm not going to debate guns or what country is best/worst. I've spent time in many countries and enjoyed their cultures immensely. I know that my founders didn't want to be under the rule of the countries which we are discussing so thy ensured that the country could arm itself against such rule.

As a side note, I or those I've been with, have been robbed three times in my life. Once in Niece, some theif stole my helmet off of my rental scooter. Once in Paris, a five-year-old street rat (fully insured, I'm sure) slit my pocket open and stole my wallet, and the third while on a train from Barcelona to Niece as a group of French Military d-bags stole the luggage from some girls I was traveling with only to flaunt their goods as the train moved on. No one has ever robbed me in the U.S., but maybe I'm packing heat. Who knows? And no, I wouldn't have shot any of these theives in the situations described.

 

[Wavex]

Yeah sorry I wasn't trying to compare countries or see which is best (great topics though)... I was just stating what I believe are some of the reasons why there are proportionally more homicides in the US compared to EURO.

And my bad again because European countries are not "socialist" in the US's sense of the word... they're just MORE social in general (I just want their vacation ).

 

[Jez]

Gang shoot Belfast homeowner to get guns:

BBC News - Gang shoot Belfast homeowner to get guns

 

[wrightme43]

Assuming you'd leave the caging of these evildoers to the authorities - unless you were planning to set up a small jail in your basement - why not leave the destroying of them to the professionals as well?

Outstanding question!!

Because they dont wait for the police to show up before they try to harm others. So the police react to crime, not prevent crimes.

Sorta like this.

Why do I carry a gun??
A cop is too heavy.

LOL LOL

Hope you never have to experince being helpless at the hands of a criminal, but the mindset you present definitely leaves that possibility open.

Or

Would you rather watch helplessly as a group of thugs rape your wife, or shoot them dead?

Or how about this one.

Your government has went mad. They are rounding up people who disagree in the streets, marching them off to "re-education camps" where no one returns. Do you go like a meek little lamb, or do you fight?

 

[Jez]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't defend themselves; just that by permitting gun ownership, you increase the number of guns in circulation to such an extent that society as a whole actually becomes more dangerous due to the frequency with which legally acquired guns end up in the hands of criminals - hence the 25,000 firearms deaths each year in the US (pop. 300m), as opposed to 150 or so in the UK (pop. 60m).

As illustrated by the BBC link above, possessing firearms is no guarantee of safety. If 3 paramilitaries turn up in your house, you'll have to be pretty damn good to turn that situation to your advantage. Because, to take one of your examples, if you pull out a gun they might just shoot you and then rape your wife anyway. Personally I think the local CO19 / SWAT team would make a better job of it.

Your government has went mad. They are rounding up people who disagree in the streets, marching them off to "re-education camps" where no one returns. Do you go like a meek little lamb, or do you fight?

I see. You're going to take on a government that turns against its people overnight with your gun collection. Didn't work too well for David Koresh, did it? Or any number of end-of-world visionaries holed up in their bunkers, taking on The Man.

I wonder if there's ever been a study done to correlate hours of TV drama watched by gun ownership proponents? Because that's where most of these arguments belong - the realm of drama with self in imaginary role as hero, saving the day by blazing away.

 

[Fred]

I see. You're going to take on a government that turns against its people overnight with your gun collection.

(This is not intended as an anti-England tirade. Please don't take it as such.)

The people of this country did exactly that once before. We got sick of British rule, and thanks to the fact that pretty much every person in the land was armed and competent with a firearm, we were able to quickly form militias to defend ourselves.

History repeats itself.

I also find it interesting that in these Europe vs. US discussions, nobody ever brings up Switzerland. Guns in every household, and they know how to use them.

Now, that's not an indication that the guns have prevented crime. There are major cultural differences that go along with this. But neither do these firearms cause or contribute to the crime rate significantly.

Maybe it's the mandatory military service. Every citizen is taught to use a gun, use it safely, and when and how to use it. I think that maturity and respect counts for a lot.

That is one thing that the USA is lacking. You need a license for a car, but a firearm is much more dangerous and you don't have to demonstrate competence before acquiring one (CCW permits excepted).

I think the high murder rate is not due to the prevalence of firearms. It's due to a piss-poor education system that would rather hand out A's than actually teach students. It's due to those undereducated students being unable to find work that they can take pride in, and instead turning to crime. It's due to the macho, tougher than you attitude that has been growing in people over the past couple of decades.

This country is filling up with incompetent, uneducated wanna-be bad asses with no self esteem or self control. And that is the reason we have a high rate of crime.

Fred

 

[krid80]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't defend themselves; just that by permitting gun ownership, you increase the number of guns in circulation to such an extent that society as a whole actually becomes more dangerous due to the frequency with which legally acquired guns end up in the hands of criminals - hence the 25,000 firearms deaths each year in the US (pop. 300m), as opposed to 150 or so in the UK (pop. 60m).

As illustrated by the BBC link above, possessing firearms is no guarantee of safety. If 3 paramilitaries turn up in your house, you'll have to be pretty damn good to turn that situation to your advantage. Because, to take one of your examples, if you pull out a gun they might just shoot you and then rape your wife anyway. Personally I think the local CO19 / SWAT team would make a better job of it.



I see. You're going to take on a government that turns against its people overnight with your gun collection. Didn't work too well for David Koresh, did it? Or any number of end-of-world visionaries holed up in their bunkers, taking on The Man.

I wonder if there's ever been a study done to correlate hours of TV drama watched by gun ownership proponents? Because that's where most of these arguments belong - the realm of drama with self in imaginary role as hero, saving the day by blazing away.

All really good points. the only thing you left out is the answer to this question: "How can we get the intruders to not harm us while we wait two hours for SWAT to assemble and arrive?"

 

[Jez]

All really good points. the only thing you left out is the answer to this question: "How can we get the intruders to not harm us while we wait two hours for SWAT to assemble and arrive?"

2 hours? LOL - your lot need to train more . CO19 response times here tend to be in minutes.

However, it's a perfectly good point and merits a sensible answer. Firstly if you're serious about security - and if you've got a gun in the house I'm assuming you would be - then you'd want some quality protection. Anything that delays entry. In Africa we had a cage door inside the front door, bars on windows, and what they called a 'rape gate' - a barred entrance at the top of the stairs. Sensor activated burglar alarm. Then if you hear someone trying to break in, you've got time to get on the phone and make a strategic retreat. Keeping people out is a hell of a lot more effective than hoping you'll be able to take them out once they are in.

The reason I say that is that a guy I know in Nairobi had his house attacked by approximately 20 men armed with AK47s. He actually owns a gun, but in that scenario if you start shooting back you are going to cause a massacre. By retreating further up the house, activating alarms and calling security, who arrived in under 10 minutes, he scared off the intruders.

Fred wrote:

The people of this country did exactly that once before. We got sick of British rule, and thanks to the fact that pretty much every person in the land was armed and competent with a firearm, we were able to quickly form militias to defend ourselves.

But that was 200 and something years ago. Don't you think we have both moved on as societies since then?

I believe we have, and that we have mechanisms in place nowadays that are far more effective at protecting ourselves from government repression before anything ever reached the stage where armed revolt was necessary.

Being Irish myself, I appreciate the analogy - a history of armed rebellion, albeit in more recent times. But that's in hugely different circumstances. And I'm of the view that the more guns there are in circulation the harder it is to maintain peace in a society.

As for Switzerland, it's an interesting example precisely because it highlights the cultural difference in societies. Although they have a high rate of gun ownership it is extremely tightly controlled - as is their society generally. While homicide by firearms as a proportion is higher than England and Wales, overall crime is far lower. In fact Switzerland is probably the only example you'll ever see of the true definition of 'a well-regulated militia'. Nevertheless, they have tightened ownership requirements significantly in recent years and the opposition party is in favour of still tighter controls, so it's far from being uncontroversial.

I think the high murder rate is not due to the prevalence of firearms. It's due to a piss-poor education system that would rather hand out A's than actually teach students. It's due to those undereducated students being unable to find work that they can take pride in, and instead turning to crime. It's due to the macho, tougher than you attitude that has been growing in people over the past couple of decades.

I think it's a deadly combination of both. We can do the piss-poor education thing in the UK as well, and broadly get the same results, but with a lower bodycount due to fewer firearms. If your average UK chav had easier access to firearms, we'd really be up the creek.

 

[wrightme43]

Of course you know the 25,000 firearms deaths include suicides, and mainly illegal gun owners killing other illegal gun owners, involved in illegal activity right?

3 "paramilitary" are not going to form a attack plan, rehearse it on built set of your house to bust in and rape your wife. That is normally a by product of robbery. If you are able and willing to defend yourself the people that behave in that manner usually flee. Or they are shot inside a home you know well and they do not. The swat team is not sitting outside every home to protect it, as a matter of fact the Supreme court has stated that the police are under no obligation to protect us.

Not just me, there is not much one man can do against a government. However are you saying because you know you cant win, you wont fight at all? I will, a good part of my neighbors will. There are 43-55 million house holds with guns in the U.S.

If only 5% fight a government gone mad, thats over 2 million armed resistance fighters. If the government is able to get all the military to fight against its own people. (they wont most will fight for the people) they have 2.4 million including the reserves and coast guard.

Not really the "self imaginary hero" as you say. Most likely scenario is that I and most of us die in a horrible manner. Just wont march off in a line to be hung, or dig a large hole, climb in and be machine gunned. Ever watch the Poles? Or read about the Rape of Nanking? The world is not a nice place. You know this living where you live. Humans have a horrible propensity to commit atrocity on each other. Ignore and pretend it doesnt happen or wont ever happen to me doesnt work. It is my and almost all other gun owners desire to never ever have to use our weapons in self defense against another.



"possessing firearms is no guarantee of safety"

Really wanna talk about this one. There is no guarantee of safety anywhere. Are you saying without the ability to defend yourself you are somehow safer?????

Who is really more likely to be attacked.
A family that does not have any weapons and has stated that they will just call the police and wait?
Or.
A family that has made a simple defense plan (simular to a fire plan) and aquired the tools and training to do so? Following the description you placed above those seem like awesome precautions. How does the ability to stop a violent attack with deadly force make them any less valuable? It doesnt it is only one more tool in the a humans ability to protect themselves.

Why did I stand topside guard with a .45 on a submarine? Was I expected to stop a attack, or slow it down to give others time to arm themselves, or was it to deter???

It was a deterence. It made a sure thing, and not so sure thing. Thats what firearms do.

A unarmed woman home alone with her kids has no deterence. The police where I live at least 10-15 mins away if you call before the bad happens.

A armed woman home alone is 2 seconds away from defending herself.

Who is most likely to be attacked?

Does the armed woman actually protect the others that are unarmed by deterence due to the criminals not knowing who is armed and who is not? Yes of course.

The idea that removal of all guns will make people safe is foolishness.

Outlaw alcohol and drunks will stop driving?

 

[wrightme43]

Very graphic.
NSFW
Not for the weak of stomach.

Just one more reason to own and know how to use a firearm.

Wild animals are dangerous as well.

Sean Linnane: TENT CAMPING AND POLAR BEARS

 

[Gilo-FZ6]

Very graphic.
NSFW
Not for the weak of stomach.

Just one more reason to own and know how to use a firearm.

Wild animals are dangerous as well.

Sean Linnane: TENT CAMPING AND POLAR BEARS

This guy was camping on the bears doorstep...does this mean that every swimmer and surfer needs to carry a 12 guage every time they visit the beach in case of sharks :BLAA: