This is a call to ban all knives!

After reading this article , I strongly feel we need legislation that will ban knives. These are dangerous tools and shouldn't be handled by common folk.

...kidding of course. A sad story without a doubt, but it does reiterate the fact that if a nutjob wants to kill people, he doesn't need a gun to do it and will do so by any means available.

Here is another story from Canada last summer.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=702288

Ban whatever you like, there is no protection from random crazies.

(The one thing we can be thankful for is that such events are rare enough to be news when they do happen.)

Some of us carry our own protection legally.

The case in Belgium was with young children.

The young fellow in Canada that got beheaded and snacked upon was asleep on the bus when it happened.

It does not matter what you might carry, packing a pistol might not mean much.
Crazies have guns too.

Remember Charles Whitman?
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html

You also can't outlaw stupidity or legislate common sense. Both actions would definitely make it a better world!

If we could ban crazy people (or ensure that they had access to appropriate mental health treatment) that would also reduce these types of incidents. Outlawing any "tool" will just make someone use another "tool" to do the same job. Humans can use their ingenuity to figure out another way to kill each other.

Yeah, I get you. I don't want to get into the pro or anti gun debate either.

All I wanted to point out was that having a pistol in your pocket does not suddenly render you invincible.

Outlawing a tool does not remove it from criminal use. Look at England. They outlawed guns how long ago? and yet they still have people shooting people. But even if you got rid of most of the guns, the argument still holds that bad guys will just find another way of doing what they do. So then you outlaw knives, and now only the bad guys will have them, unless somehow you can eliminate a vast majority from the gen pop so that getting a knife by any means is just going to be difficult. Now the criminals will just use field expedient weapons, such as rock, or sticks, or broken glass, or a jar of gasoline and a match.

And yes, you can outlaw stupidity and legislate common sense, but then we'd only have a one party political system.

Yes but if we outlawed stupidity, what would we do with them?

I was complaining to a buddy of mine about stupid drivers and how it should be illegal to be stupid. He, a sergeant in our city's police department said "If we made it illegal to be stupid, the streets would be empty."

That's potential sig line material right there AND it works no matter which side of the debate you belong to.

So how do you propose being prepared for crazy and unpredictable people?

(I mean besides responding with completely uncontrolled and heavily armed paranoia)

Big Daddy, I am neither for or against guns because I don't think they really matter that much.

I grew up with them and used them most of my younger life for hunting and on the farm.
I don't bother keeping any guns around now simply because I can't be bothered with them.

We have people here who want to ban anything that looks like a gun. Right behind them are the people who want to ban knives.
In some places a baseball bat is considered a restricted weapon and you better have a good excuse if there is one in the trunk of your car.
Pepper spray is not weapon if it is for dogs or bears, but it might get you criminal charges of you have it on the subway...

At what point do you run out of things to ban?
It gets quite ridiculous sometimes.

On top of that I don't know anyplace where the police can not charge you with possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace (or words to that effect) and let a judge decide if your rolled up newspaper, your wife's high heeled shoe or your grandma's cane is actually a weapon.

None of these measures deal with the crazy.
And yes, the crazy just go to the next weapon of opportunity.

We cut funding for the treatment of the mentally ill years ago and simply turned them loose in society.

Consider that the shooter at Virginia Tech was supposed to be restricted from having weapons and was supposed to be receiving psychiatric care, and the resources to do that, to make it happen, were not available.

Yes to the secondary post too, well mostly yes anyhow.
I mean other than keeping your head up and being reasonably cautious what else is there to do really.

One thing I do know is that I will never allow the fear of the crazies to run my life for me.
__________
And yes, this thread is going too political, which I wanted to avoid.
So I will stop there.

If there is any one life skill ice hockey has taught my son, it has to be "KEEP YOUE HEAD UP".

Sure there are other lessons, but it only takes being rocked on you butt once to remind one to keep your head up and on a swivel.

[quote=BigDaddyTX]It's like 9/11. Out of all the planes, only on one of them did the people on board decide to take out their aggressors. [quote]

The difference in reaction is largely explained by what the passengers were aware of.

On the other two planes passengers were told that the intent of the hijackers, armed with a bomb, was to fly to a neutral location and to negotiate their release in exchange for political prisoners. This is what hijackers did up to this time and it was what the passengers and fight crews expected and trained for.

The proper response in that case, if it were true, was to remain calm and don't do anything that might cause the hijackers to blow up the plane. Everyone stays cool and in a few hours, a few days at the outside, most of the passengers would be rescued or released and they would go home safe.

It was the understanding that the hijackers had a bomb but didn't want to use it and the expectation that most people could survive that kept people from attacking the hijackers.

On flight 93 things were different. There was a delay in takeoff and they were running behind the other three flights. The world watch stunned as the other two flights flew into the WTC towers and the pentagon was hit. The account of those flights got back to the passengers on flight 93 and they realized that the hijackers weren't intending to land and negotiate. That the plane itself was going to be used as a missile. That their only hope was taking control of the plane from the hijackers and landing it on their own. That if they failed to land it, at the very least, they could stop it being used as a weapon.

Their actions were primarily a last ditch effort to save themselves. Failing that to ruin the hijackers day by causing their mission to fail.

The difference was that the people on flight 93 knew what the intentions of the hijackers were. If the passengers knew this on the other three flight there is every expectation that the passengers would have reacted differently.

People can only react to the situation as they understand it. The passengers on flight 93 are made to seem overly heroic and the passengers on the other two flights exceedingly cowardly if it is assumed that all knew the intentions of the hijackers. By all reports the passengers on the first three flight either never knew what the hijackers intended or that it only became clear in the last moments.

Now that people know that the planes themselves can be used as weapons the calculus has shifted. A would-be hijacker with a gun had better have brought a lot of ammunition. Six shots isn't going to get it. Shoot everyone on board and there is a good chance better than half will live if they get medical attention. If the plane flies into a building everyone dies. No exceptions.

Which is why passengers are much less passive than they once were. Act like your causing serious trouble now and the good people are going to be coming at you from all directions and six at a time.

Hey, whatever it takes to get rid of the democrats and republicans.

benajammin wrote:

"Outlawing a tool does not remove it from criminal use. Look at England. They outlawed guns how long ago? and yet they still have people shooting people."

'still have' doesn't begin to describe it. shootings doubled in the first 5 years after the 97 ban and have kept rising since.

but the british are STILL convinced bans work and every time a shooting happens in the US they scoff at the US gun laws.

if that belgium incident had happened in texas those kids would have had a chance.

QJS

OK, I know I'm about to get a mouthful of something nasty, but I'll bite....

Based on your statement, you make the assumption that anyone who carries is (a) paranoid, (b) not in control of themselves, and (c) heavily armed. I'll take exception to all of the above. This isn't about politics. This is about mindset. One path leads ultimately to becoming a serf or a refugee. The other... is my path.

Paranoia is a specific psychological condition, and while I know it is not your intent to slander with this term, it is insulting. To the average person who can't be bothered to have 72 hours of supplies on hand, those of us who have 120 hours, or 240 hours, or just a month's worth of supplies are "paranoid". If believing that someone other than your self is ultimately responsible for your safety is paranoid, then I'm not sure why you are here. I'm not being nasty, but I have to ask that. It doesn't matter if we are talking getting lost in the woods, deciding to leave before a hurricane, or getting taken out by a meth head who wants the five bucks in cash you are carrying- all of those are real situations, and if not avoidable, failing to prepare for how to counter them is at best shortsighted, and more likely just ingorance in action.

By saying people who chose to be armed are not in control of their actions is very insulting, and shows you don't know much about people who practice any form of martial art, be it armed or unarmed hand to hand, bows, or firearms. To use any of them effectively, you need to be in control of yourself. The only way to beat discipline is luck.

Or perhaps you are thinking not so much of a random beserker, but of someone who flaunts laws. I have no respect for that type of person. My employer has a no weapons policy. Our parking area is not the most secure location. As a result, I choose not to carry anything heavier than a Swiss Army knife at or to work. It is not desirably, but it is the way things are. When my vehicle was down, I added a small can of pepper spray which stayed in my pack during the day, and that was it. When I used to carry regularly, I would not carry in a bar; when I used to drink regularly, I didn't carry period. I ask you if that is the action of a random beserker who is not in control of his actions?

As for heavily armed, I'm sorry, but that is a silly term. To a person with bare hands, someone with a rock is armed. Two rocks (one for throwing, one for smashing) in heavily armed when all you have is ten fingers.

Now, you do talk about avoidance. So we don't go out at night. We let the park become a dealing ground and crack house, and keep the kids out of it. Those of us who's socioeconomic situation gives them the luxury of avoiding bad parts of town do so, and if you can't, sucks to be you. Avoidance and situational awareness prevent walking into ambushes. But they can also make you a target. A "crazy" can see it two ways- as a threat to his status, or a sign telling the world you are prey. The really crazy, you can't avoid them if they want to play with you.

Sorry, I'd rather accept responsibility for myself, and be able to assist those around me. If that makes me paranoid in your eyes, then allow me to counter with this. It makes me a free man in my eyes, and the master of my own destiny. I have options other than running away or begging on my knees, just like I have options other than freezing to death or waiting on my roof for the helos to come. Sure, those options are open to me if they are the best ones, but I can now chose. Only small children, subjects and slaves have to rely on someone else to take care of them, and all are at the mercy of that "protector".

That would involve outlawing organized political parties period. One of the more interesting mechanics improvements found in the CSA's constitution.

Ironraven -- Agree with all, well stated. I too avoid areas where bad things happen but sometimes crazies seek out a target rich environment.

According to this Gun Crime Report, there was a peak around 2003 and figures have been in decline since (fig 3). The variation seems to depend on ease of importing.

I'm not going to scoff, and I don't approve of the bans we instituted after Dunblane (nor similar tabloid-led legislation over the last 10 years). However, even in 2002 we had only 0.15 gun homicides per 100,000 people, and the USA had 3.98 (fig 6). So pro-rata, the USA has 26 times as many gun-killings as the UK. For whatever reason I think it is working better here than in America. Only around 0.2% of our recorded crime involves guns. It's a different culture. In general when the public encounter the police here, neither side expects the other to be armed.

Brangdon, I think its more attributed to the social mores of each country; here, the gangster image that permeates our larger cities, and a significant amount of our smaller ones, exemplify violence through their music and actions. I mean, in the past month, we have had 2 NFL players get shot; one shot himself accidentally, the other was shot by someone else. There are role models for inner city youth. Unfortunately, their violence is seen as something positive; going to jail is seen as a badge of honor; a finishing school for criminals of sorts. Until THAT lifestyle is changed, we will always have the violence within our culture; be it unarmed muggings, stabbings, shootings, or drive by fraggings (well, hopefully it wont come to that!). Criminals here are armed illegally; to disarm our country simply wont happen. Too many people own firearms legally, and would hide them. It is something that simply isnt feasible; all you are doing is disarming the legal owners; criminals will continue to do what they do.

Agreed. Many folks prefer to pretend that they are safe and in control of their surroundings as long as their on the right side of town or there are no evil guns present. A knife is such a simple tool and yet defending yourself against one is underestimated by most. If you don't have a knife you can likely improvise or make one in minutes from whatever is lying around.

Since we are hearing the benefits of your unarmed society, pray tell us about knife crime, and blunt objects please.

I was taught (Military and civilian law enforcement) there are only three viable defenses to either a knife or club attack:
1) Run, but that isn't always a viable option.
2) Shoot to stop the assailant, also not always the best option.
3) Don't get attacked. Guess that means becoming a shut-in alone.


I am sure there is little knife crime in the UK also. Surely that is why your constables are not issued special vests to prevent knife injury. Oh wait, they are given those vests, or buy them themselves. Guess that blows the whole no knife crime idea out of the water.

To each his own, but I intend on being able to protect myself, my family and other innocent folks within sight if I must. I prepare to do so with prayers I will never have to.

BTW, were those legal firearms and explosives the IRA used during the troubles?

Most people who are for banning weapons tend to conveniently forget one simple truth. If a criminal is willing to commit robbery, murder, or any other crime - then they surely don't care about the penalty for carrying said weapon while committing the greater offense.

Anti-gun and anti-knife laws do nothing more than assure that only criminals will possess guns and knives. And gun-free zones accomplish the same thing. Every time I hear of yet another shooting in a "Gun-Free Zone", it's always a situation where at least one of the victims could have defended themselves if they were armed. How well did the signs labeling the area a "Gun-Free Zone" work to keep the armed criminal from shooting innocent civilians?

Look at the crime statistics from the US from years ago. In an era where everyone was armed, crime levels were amazingly low. In the wild west days, if a bank got robbed, it was big news, like Billy-the-Kid type news. Today, thousands of bank robberies happen every month. People used to know that if you stole someone's horse, you'd get shot dead for it.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

In the last year, we had something really sad happen. Seems a young man son#1 had been friends with became addicted to meth. We all knew something was "wrong", but until the kid really hit bottom we didn't know. I guess we (all but sons #1&2) were in denial. The sons had stopped running with him about the time son#2 moved in.

The young man in question was discovered only after breaking into many friends homes having cased them while visiting earlier. Strangest thing is he never tried our house. When he got out of rehab, I asked him about it...

He didn't try our house because he knew he risked one of us being there during the day. He also said he knew I would shoot an intruder without question. Guess that legal firearm ownership worked as an insurance policy on that one.

Yep, "Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

I am sorry Red, but I have to burst that bubble.
The "Good Old Days" are just another escapist fantasy.

If you look at the historic crime rates and examine what the crimes were they were much higher at a lot of times and in a lot of places than they are now.

When you hear about historic crime sprees remember you are only hearing about the ones that were bad enough to remember for more than 100 years, ones bad enough to be reported nation wide at a time that mass media hardly existed.

You are not hearing about the countless local robberies and small murders earlier times were plagued with.
(When you hear about smaller towns being safer that is another fantasy too. Assault rates are higher in small towns.)

The idea that everybody was walking around armed to the teeth is a bit false too. Guns might not have been illegal, but they didn't have to be.
Guns were very expensive items and so was ammunition. People could not afford to be armed like they are now.

Anyway, crime rates change and nobody really knows why.

Since 1990 the violent crime rate has been dropping, in spite of all the scary stories in the media, and it has nothing to do with gun ownership levels.

Nobody has been able to link it with anything else either. Not even to the population getting older or to the police being better equipped.

When you hear that they hanged horse thieves all that means is there was enough horse theft that they resorted to drastic measures in an attempt to reduce horse thievery.

Brangdon wrote:

'According to this Gun Crime Report, there was a peak around 2003 and figures have been in decline since (fig 3). The variation seems to depend on ease of importing.'

Thanks for that Brangdon I've been trying to find the figures; hence my vagueness on the numbers after the first 5 years.

But aren't you agreeing that gun bans don't control the amount of shootings, when you say it depends on the ease of importing? Banning legal guns has no effect on that.
And doesn't that graph show that every sort of gun crime has risen since the bans were legislated? How can they be said to work?

The USA is one exammple of a place with more guns and more gun crime. But if it really depended on whether guns were illegal, the Bronx would be gun crime free and New Hampshire would be dodge city.
Norway has the highest gun ownership in Europe; where is the gun crime?
QJS

Wow. That is a silly statement.

If figured in gold, silver or oil, rather than currencies, the cost of small arms and ammunition hasn't changed all that much since the introduction of the fixed cartridge if you factor out the military surplus items prior each of the World Wars. Even then, you could buy a Carcano and 500 rounds for how much in 1962? Probably wouldn't work out to be much more than you would pay for Mosin and 500 rounds now. And the reason I'm not hitting the range every week is because I can't afford it- I make right around the average in this area, to.

I'll go further than NH. Vermont has NO state gun laws other than (a) you can't own supressors, which is part of the fish and game laws, (b) you can't carry a loaded long arm in a car, also part of of fish and game, (c) you can't carry in schools or state/town offices, and (d) federal laws. If you can legally buy it, you can legally carry it concealed, and no local jurisdiction can forbid or restrict in way your right to carry concealed.

And we have the second lowest violent crime rate in the US. If you factor out the narcotics related crimes carried out by people who have resided in the state less than three years, we have the lowest. Our crimes are mostly driven by dealers who grew up in NYC, Jersey, that kind of place. *shrugs*

Uhuh, and a new rifle in 1780 would have cost more than 2 English Pounds. (Dollars were not current yet.)
That was more than most people made in a month back then.
50 Pounds a year was considered a small fortune.

I can buy a new rifle today for less than a 2 day's wages

By 1870 mass production had lowered the prices, but repeating rifles were still extremely expensive compared to how much they would cost in labor now.

Arguing prices based on commodities like gold is not very good. Metals fluctuate a lot in value.
Gold was cheap enough at one point that they actually used it as currency.

You need to count the cost in comparison to what people earned.

1780? Did you forget the minute men? Everyone had some sort
of weapon in their home. Probably not a Brown Bess, most likely swords and such then.
Course in Briton the banning of such being owned by the common
folk and the abuses they suffered because they couldn't
defend themselves, is likely what led to the USA's 2nd amendment.

You could buy a new rifle at sears at the turn of the last
century for a $5 gold piece. That $5 gold piece would buy you
a rifle today too. Probably 5 days wages for a manual laborer.

Many states have long had
homesteading laws that allow you to keep at least one firearm after bankruptcy, it was considered so important.

My Grandad sent lever action rifles and ammo to Britain in WW2
so citizens could defend themselves after being disarmed in the previous years. A mechanic, he was by no means rich.

Violent crime rates appear to me to follow economic trends.
Less desperation, less crime.

Read my comments again without putting any words in my mouth.
Then instead of getting all bug eyed think about what I actually said.

In most cases being armed would not have helped the victims, and having a gun in your pocket would only have given you a heavy pocket.
If somebody with a knife in their hand is within 20 feet of you and wants you dead, a gun in a holster is not fast enough to matter.
Even if you have your gun out you likely won't get on target and fire before they are cutting you into pieces.
You would need to have it out, aimed and safety off before they took a single step your way.
(and in that case you should be yelling at them very loudly to drop the knife and lie on their belly or you will shoot them, and shoot them if they don't do just that)

Having a pistol handy certainly would not have helped anybody hit by the Texas Tower Sniper.
He was able to keep selecting targets and firing at them with a high powered telescopic sighted rifle for over an hour and a half from the top of that tower.
(he was the first of the real mass murder shooters by the way)

As for cleaning up druggie parks.
There are ways to do that. It takes community involvement and police assistance.
The Charles Bronson Big Gun fantasy simply wouldn't work.
It might make for an exciting movie, but in reality it would just get you shot.

And about the word paranoid. Yes it is a psychological term and I wish people would look it up.
paranoia

So, when my Grandfather and every old person I've ever met tell me that they used to be able to leave their doors unlocked when they left the house or went to bed, they're full of it?

When they tell me a lot of places around here you used to be able to walk down the streets after dark and not fear for your life, they're lying to me?

I deal in actual crimes at my work, the resulting situation of people having an alarm system installed after the crime has happened. I see people who've had home invasions, armed robberies, break-ins, and worse. So, all those people are lying too? Crime statistics don't lie. The trend may be slightly downward since 1990 or so, but I'm talking about the long-term.

Pretty much I would say they had the same problems.
I still know places where people don't lock doors, but those are very small communities.
It is pretty weird the first time you wake up and smell coffee because the three neighbors you are going hunting with came over to wake you up and put a pot of coffee on for you.

I bet if you check most of New York city lived under lock and key even if you go back to the early 1800s

Does this look like a picture of the "Good Old Days?"

Dead Rabbits Gang 1857

"Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."

http://www.morganprinting.org/PortRangerRay.html

Civilian 22 rifles--

4 pages of predictable posts and an escalation from knives to firearms. So, I must ask? How many people are aware of Doug's other effort for knife rights? it's on the homepage.

Yup, long guns Clearwater.
Not pistols that are only good for 50 yards, and only after the police were firing back at him with their rifles already. I also doubt if they would have had much effect at that range and elevation.
I also doubt if any officer anywhere would have said anything negative about the citizens returning fire after such an outrageous shooting spree.
Certainly not in a book he was selling.
(You do understand that the Texas Tower shootings hit the news and the American mind of the time almost as hard as the assassination of Kennedy or 9-11 did? I mean it is almost a forgotten page of history now, but at the time it was all shock and outrage)

Anyway, all this gun talk was not something I wanted to get into. I certainly did not want to get into a long history lesson and be commenting on the American frontier mythology.
That is a sure way to make enemies and annoy friends.

I pointed out in my early comments that I am not anti-gun or pro-gun and why that was. I will leave it at that.

Your comment that economic trends have an effect on crime is interesting. Yet it does not always hold. I don't know the answer to what causes crime rates to fluctuate or to be higher in some counties than others.
I have not been able to find anybody who has an answer either.
Like you I have some ideas, but no way to really know.
______
Yes Chris, I did read the bit about Knife Rights on the homepage.
I wasn't even really interested in that part of this discussion.
I was more interested in how to harden vulnerable places a bit more against the random lunatics.
But I did make at least one comment about the Anties- and their insatiable drive to ban everything possible.
I think for many of them it is like a mania.
When they get down to banning teeth and fingernails let me know, eh.

I am not going to answer on this thread anymore.
My posting list is starting to look like a troll's

Actually I'm finding this a very good gun law conversation. Thanks for correcting me on british gun crime rates Brangdon (shock horror someone on net forum admits to being wrong!). I've looked for them many times. and thanks ironraven for telling me it's NH not Vermont that has the least gun laws (along with alaska). I can never remember which of the two it is.
I should think everyone is aware of Dougs efforts. as you say it's on the home page.
QJS

yup, and what have we found to be useful in that regard.

I see-

Run from a knife fight.
Pistols are not a universal antidote.
Long arms, even 22's have there place.
People have strong feelings about the issue.

Well, the idea that the Wild West was a period of peace is simply wrong. You have to understand that law enforcement at the time was largely ineffective and in many places nonexistent. Many small rural communities in the Wild West were more or less self-contained so they had to take care of themselves. In contrast, today you can at least dial 911 and expect some assistance. Instead of going after a bunch of hardcore bad guys myself I much prefer having a SWAT team in town. They're pros and can do the job much better than me and my neighbors...

This has happened time and again throughout history - if the state cannot guarantee the safety of the civilian population it has to allow the people to own weapons for their own protection. As history teaches us, that's by and large a stopgap measure that doesn't work nearly as well as a professional police force.

I don't think owning a gun makes anybody any safer. If you look at Africa and many other third-world countries, there are places where just about everyone owns a gun (and more often than not an AK, which is a helluva better weapon than any handgun). Crime rate is still extremely high. Why? Because even an armed population will not be able to do much against organized, heavily armed gangs. That is, unless they can get sufficiently organized themselves to form a standing armed/police force. In which case the civilian population will not really need weapons any longer.

Oh, and I'm actually pro-gun.

Vigilantes-

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN19371958

So, we should all just dial 911 on the phone and then cower in the corner until the good guys show up to save the day? The reality of that situation is that all too often, the police arrive just in time to clean up the aftermath. My own brother, as well as several friends of mine, are current or former police officers and that is straight from them.

The police may or may not make it there in time to stop someone from harming myself or my family. The alarm system may or may not function properly. But, I will do everything in my power to see that myself and my family survive the ordeal.

Your reasoning that having police meaning the civilian population no longer needs guns is flawed. If you have a fire department, does that mean you shouldn't have smoke detectors or a fire extinguisher in your residence or business? There are plenty of highly-trained doctors and paramedics, does that mean you should not carry a first aid kit in your vehicle?

The thought that the big, warm, fuzzy government will come bail us all out of whatever ails us without us having to lift a finger is a sad part of the downfall of modern society. I'd expect a forum about preparedness to be the last place I'd hear someone say that we should just wait until the good guys show up to help us.

Yes; I don't think the Dunblane gun controls achieved anything positive. I certainly don't advocate banning guns in America. Even if it had helped here it probably wouldn't help there.

It was just a straw doll, wasn't it? You aren't arguing against a position anyone here has taken.

That said, I do think that knife crime is a lesser evil than gun crime. I don't think Hamilton would have been able to kill 16 children if he'd only been armed with knives. Recent reports show an increase in knife crime and a decrease in gun crime, and if that reflects criminals switching from guns to knives it's surely a good thing.

I'm afraid you missed my point. I very much support the idea that any sane, responsible, law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own firearms. But the idea that violent crime just won't happen in a community where everybody is armed is nonsense.

How many people do actually have the skills to protect themselves against bad guys? I know a bunch of civilians who own guns. IMHO, very few of them could actually handle themselves in any kind of confrontation. Whether it was bare hands, knife or firearm. Very few people have what it takes to use a weapon under stress. But very many people feel a sense of false security and power when they have a gun at hand. That's exactly the kind of stuff that's bad in a confrontation.

I find it a little funny how people look at some incident and say, well, it couldn't have happened if there was an armed bystander around. That's just ridiculous. Look at what happened in Belgium. Do you seriously think the staff could have stopped the psycho from stabbing those people if they had guns? I don't think the typical nurse has the training to deploy a gun and incapacitate a knife-wielding attacker at close quarters. I bet the staff didn't even realize what was going on at the time or were just too shocked to do anything. Whether you have a gun is immaterial if you're wetting your pants. If there really happened to be someone at the scene who had the guts to prevent least some of the victims from getting hurt, he would've done it anyway, gun or no gun. It's all about the attitude and mental toughness. In a situation like that you have basically no time to respond. If you have what it takes, you'll grab a chair and smash the weirdo's skull, kick him in the groin and stomp the holy crap out of him, whatever. But again, there are very few folks who can do that in reality. And for the rest it doesn't really matter whether they're armed or not because the mental component isn't there.

You have to be real - bad stuff tends to happen all of a sudden when you least expect it. And often times the last thing you want in a situation like that is some gun-toting vigilante spraying lead all over the place. A firefighter friend of mine has told me how people sometimes put themselves in danger because they don't realize their own limitations. They see a fire and try to put it out on their own. Before they know it the situation gets totally out of control. Then when the firefighters arrive they have to rescue that person first, which in turn puts yet more people in danger.

I realize full well that life is a crapshoot and that everybody should take care of their own safety as much as possible. The police can't be there all the time. But at least they're equipped, prepared and competent to handle that kind of work. Whereas 99% of the general population are not, whether they own guns or not. That's why owning weapons doesn't make anybody safer per se. Guns sure as hell didn't make the Wild West a safe place no more that some African village where everybody and their grandma is toting an AK.

I think your missing the point more. Bad things can happen anywhere but less bad things happen when there are armed people around because now the bad guys are more likely to face even odds. Look at the statistics from cities like Washington DC or Chicago IL where you have very strict gun laws so there are high rate of crimes because there is less chance of being stopped. Criminals pick on the weak so when people are weakened by lawsthey make for easier targets. Looks at places where everyones grandma does tote an AK, crime is low there because criminals are going to be less likely to mug/rop/rape grandma.
The wild wild west didn't get its name because everyone was running around shooting everyone else, back then you typically carried a single shot or an early revolver and carried only a handful of bullets and those were more for getting your dinner rather than fighting bcause you couldn't drive down to the corner store to get more bullets you had to be very careful with how many you used.

Now is that a fact?



When was the last time you've been to wild Africa?

Grandma keeps her AK by the fireplace. What does she do when a gang of teenagers stoned out of their mind raid the village (they have AK's too and can probably shoot a bit better)? The answer is, she doesn't just get mugged - she gets robbed, raped and killed. Well, maybe they just cut her hand off with a machete and rape her daughter instead.

Another great example of a "polite" armed society - the Balkans in the 90's. Now everybody over there was armed to the teeth. But you're right, they didn't have that much crime as we understand it. They had genocide.

Now I'm outta here before it gets too political. Stay safe!

Think back to 9/11....these people highjacked FOUR planes FULL of people using only boxcutters. Only a handful fought back on ONE plane (that we are aware of). People, when confronted with a foriegn situation, often dont react at all..because they down know how to. I think that, given those situations again, even with 6 highjackers, I would start rallying people REAL fast...someone WILL get hurt, possibly killed; however, that is a risk you may have to take. People value their own lives too much though, and not enough of others. Sure, they say it AFTER the fact, but, and there have been several experiments regarding this, including some that have been TV shows; people, at least here in America, would choose not to get involved, rather than getting hurt. Sadly, our culture has slowly turned from one of exploration and risk taking to one of passivity. As bad as our current economy is, and will be in the near future, this may serve as a wake up call to us; one that will bring back our sense of self worth, and pride in our country, and ourselves.

I don't agree with that in the slightest. Possessing arms gives you a means with which to defend both yourself and others. That's why the police carry them. Granted, carrying arms comes with no guarantees though a defensive sidearm, with the proper mindset and training certainly does increase your chances in an 'unpleasant situation.' Without them, all you can do is hide and hope you don't become another victim.


How many people have the skill to drive an automobile? (I think that answer is obvious). Does that means no one should drive? You are, in this activity or in any other, as skilled as you choose to be.

self deleted

She'd have been "robbed, raped and killed" regardless. At least with her own AK she has half a chance at surviving the encounter. Unarmed she is pure victim; with a good firearm she may remove a lot of incentive for pressing the attack.

Unfortunatly for many years people have been taught, don't fight back, wait for the police to arrive. This is part of the same anti gun/knofe/self defense culture and as you poined out the events of 9/1 show this does not work. Police can't be everywhere all the time.

Be glade that you do not live in the UK.

If that had happened in the UK anyone lifting one finger to protect those babies can expect to kiss goodbye to their freedom.

Why?

Because had someone so much as harmed one hair on that P.O.S. head, irrespective of circumstance, the likely hood is that they would be tried for Murder/Manslaughter/G.B.H

The theoretical position is that you may use reasonable force, which most people (like myself) would consider to be deadly force. The practice, as demonstrated by the De Mendez affair, is somewhat different.

Leigh, that happens here too, depending on which state you are in. Where I live, the "victim" (the one originally perpatrating the crime) often sues the aggressors, stating they went beyond their means. Now, of course, the courts USUALLY dismiss these cases out of hand with adequate proof, stating that there wouldnt BE this situation without the original intended crime. But, sometimes, the anti-violence people want to solve everything with hugs...well, everything except the person defending himself/others. They are invariably labelled criminals...sometimes, the circular logic is scary.

I sure hope that changes for you. I always felt safe traveling
in GB. People trying to defend children shouldn't have
to worry about facing charges.

Hmm, this has distilled into a Jodie Foster gendre. We have either "Panic" or "The Brave One" as examples. In both movies, she plays a would be victim. In the one case, she defers to the defensive, in the other, she opts to become the pursuer.

Is it a tenet, or a cliche, then, of the saying "the best defense is a good offense"? I think Jodie, as with Chuck, would lead us to believe that fighting back is almost always going to be preferable, provided that you have a reasonable skillset, the right mindset, and a bit of the element of surprise on your side. I think it is quite possible to actually prepare in such a way as to stack the odds in your favor in most such chances of confrontation.

I grew up having a huge crush on that woman...still do. She'd never put up with me like the wife does, so it will forever remain an unrequited fantasy. Some things are better left in the shadows I reckon.

Hey bro, calling me a troll and other insults just because you disagree with what I'm saying is totally out of line.

People talk tough and think they could take on bad guys any time. Maybe you are every bit as hard as you sound. Maybe your wife really could beat any knife-wielding psycho with a baseball bat. If it's true, power to you. But if you've never done it for real, you just don't know what you're talking about.

I've been in a couple of violent confrontations myself and I know for a fact (a sad fact it is) very few people can handle themselves. The ones that talk tough are usually the first to crap their pants.

In an ideal world, an armed population would be able to protect themselves against crime. In reality, it doesn't work that way at all. The vast majority of people just lack the guts and skills to defend themselves, let alone others. Then there's the legal system that may well screw you up if you do stand up and fight back. All it takes is a judge who thinks you used "excessive" force and you'll end up in jail. Now that's TEOTWAWKI. Do I think that's ok? Hell no. But it's a fact of life and something that can't be changed just like that so you'd better take it into consideration.

But it's not even the point. What I'm saying is there are many places in the world where a lot of people legally own guns and the crime rate is very low (think of Switzerland, Finland). In most developed countries gun laws are very strict. Few people own weapons and the crime rate is low (most of Europe, Japan etc.). There are plenty of guns in the US and the crime rate is high (so clearly, something isn't working perfectly). In some parts of the world there are even more guns per capita and the crime rate is extreme.

This would suggest that gun ownership in itself has little to do with maintaining law and order. As a rule, what actually stops crime is a well run state with an effective government, happy citizens, good economy, responsive law enforcement and a good legal system. Just arming the population will do little to ensure the safety of the population if the other factors are not present.

Anyway, have fun discussing the topic but please keep the tone down. It's an online forum, not your local watering hole. As for the mods, feel free to delete my posts if you think that'll keep the tone civil.

Now I'm really outta here - peace and wishing you all a good day!

Your looking at too large of areas so your making too broad of generalizations. Look at cities like DC, Chicago where guns are banned and then see how much higher the crime rate is compares to a similar sized city someplace in TX where everyone has a gun and crime is low. Now look at rural America whwre every house has a gun rack in every bedroom and crime is low. Even the inner city ghettos where the media thinks 10 years olds are shooting each other wth AK's isn;t true, those inner cities there are very few guns since most can't afford to even buy a bullet.

Look at 9/11, when a couple people took over planes with box cutters and ask why? You really think a dozen grown men couldn't oevrpower a couple people armed with 1/2" long blades? They didn't because they are taught to fear guns and knives and to not fight back. When you grow up around guns and knives and quit fearing them you learn that a tiny box cutter will barely make it through your clothes and give a small cut that can eb treated with a band aid so there isn;t much to fear when the guy armed with a box cutter tells you so sit down and get flown to your death.

If I remember my US history correctly, every male between the ages of 15 and 60 (with at least 1 top and 1 opposing bottom tooth) were required by law to own a firearm and serve in the militia. I would venture to say, regardless of wealth or lack thereof, gun ownership was most more common back then.

Violent criminals generally did not last too long in that time period; many were shot in the process of committing their crime. There were few prisons and those that did exist were used mainly to hold accused, but not yet convicted individuals. Convicted criminals were either executed or branded, branding allowed one “get to go free card”, as if caught a second time, execution was generally the penalty. Long-term imprisonment was generally considered inhumane.

Pete

Well, no. You can use appropriate force. He couldn't and shouldn't have been killed on sight, of course, but once his intentions were clear he could have been stopped.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the de Menezes here. He was an innocent man and the police should not have killed him. They made numerous mistakes, not least failing to positively ID their suspect. Most of the mistakes were made by Command, not on the ground. It should not have happened, and shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

"There are plenty of guns in the US and the crime rate is high (so clearly, something isn't working perfectly)."

Of course! Americans tend to be poorly educated, our court system has nothing to do with justice, and we have a farce called The War on Drugs.

But if guns were outlawed across the U.S. today, the results would be disastrous. Why? Two words: RESPONSE TIME. I live in a county comprised of 727 sq. miles. The last I heard, we had six deputies on duty at any given time. If they're busy with a violent domestic incident or a drunk with a weapon, I'm SOL.

If there were two relatively high-class gated communities across the road from each other, and each had a sign, and one said "This is a gun-free neighborhood" and the other said "This neighborhood is insured by Smith & Wesson, Glock and Colt, which would a criminal choose? They're not all totally stupid.

Know how to use it, willing to use it, know the difference between right and wrong, and no weapon. A bad place to be.

Sue

Because the other passengers were deceived. They did not think it was a life-and-death situation. There had been any number of previous hijackings in which the way they behaved was entirely appropriate.

They were not told they were being flown to their death. On the flight where the passengers figured it out anyway, they did fight back.

Remember the LA riots a few years ago? I believe the cops were sued for not responding and they won the case. Something about they are not required to respond in some situations.

nm

Where would you get the "vast majority"? Like to see some
statistics on that.

Sometimes private gun ownership even prods the authorities into action.
Remember those kooks in the Jordan valley of Montana? The ones
handing out their own version of money to pay taxes and bills etc? The ones who were cheating and threatening their
neighbors? The local
Sheriff wasn't capable of doing anything, the Feds weren't doing
anything,
so the neighbors said "We'll take care of it." Made posse's
and plans for getting rid of them. That forced
law enforcement to step in before they lost control.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/freemen.asp

Tom_L, you may not be trained or properly armed to fight back against an assailant hell-bent on raping your wife, mother, or daughter. But, that said, would you honestly sit there and watch it happen and do nothing about it?

I was in the military years ago, not some super-secret Special Forces ninja bullcrap, either. I had a normal job. But one thing I learned in the military is that when the chips are down, you fight with everything in your power.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night to do me or my family harm, if there's even a .000001% chance I can stop them, I will. If I can't reach a gun, I'll use a knife. If I can't reach a knife, I'll bludgeon them with something, anything.

I will defend the lives of my family and friends with my own if need be, I'm fully prepared for that.

I'm not a mechanic, but I fix my Jeep when it's broke. I'm not a doctor, but I've sewn stitches, gauzed and taped major cuts, and splinted broken bones. I'm not a fireman, but I've put out fires and dragged people out of burning cars. I'm not a policeman, or on a SWAT team, but I'll do my best to stop anyone trying to bring harm to my family, period.

If guns don't stop crime, why do the police carry guns? Why don't they carry some balloons and maybe some flowers? Because they know, guns DO stop crime. A dead criminal isn't going to commit many more crimes.

Whew, the campfire is getting kinda hot!

The way I see it, there are two approaches being considered here, let someone else (namely law enforcement) take care of the problem, or handle it yourself.

I would reckon that for either group, what the law actually says probably doesn't make much difference to their decision. For those who would arm themselves and defend their property and person, I figure they would do it with whatever they deemed was suitable for the task, whether that was going to result in an illegal action on their part or not. Conversely, for those who would insist that criminal behavior is best handled by law enforcement agents, in whatever form, are not likely to stand and fight when it comes to something like armed robbery or worse, but will choose either escape or appeasement until the authorities arrive to take control of the situation. In any case, neither side is going to base their decision on whether owning and using a weapon for self-defense is legal or not. I know for darned sure I never would. Not really much to debate I say.

That's why there are knife laws as well!

Although after reading the tragic story from Belguim about the 'nutjob' thinking he was the 'Joker' from the latest Batman film perhaps there should be greater restrictions on the level of violence shown in many Hollywood films as well. Gun and knife violence, murder and killing mayhem are the stock in trade of the Hollywood industry machine.

Or maybe we should just squeeze the oil out of nuts.

The Odessy. Beowulf. Gilgamesh. They all are heavy on violence. I don't think that the medium of entertainment is any more to blame than any other tool for the actions of the mentally unbalanced. It's like saying that the Cantabury Tales made kids have sex, but there are plenty of naughty bits in that. We might say that violent entertainment of any form makes it more likely, but then you've just killed about half of the basic stories out there. Get rid of sex, and you are down to pious pontification. Yuck.

Perhaps we should just make crime illegal? Ban criminals and crazies? Or at least require they be stored in a secure location?

I thought we already housed criminals and crazies in secure locations. Aren't the house and senate buildings considered secure locations these days?

What ever happened to teaching our children discretion? Out of context, yes even the classics can incite disdainful behavior I suppose. Children misbehave, and parents have a duty to society to raise children so that they learn to control their behavior in a manner that doesn't interfere with the rights of others. If a child has issues or special needs (retardation, autism, epilepsy, personality disorders), then the parent has the duty to address those issues. It is now a matter of fact that for the vast majority these days the approach to parenting is merely a consequence of irresponsible sexual activity, with the parents being mostly unprepared and unmotivated to assume their requisite duties. This is a failing of our society, and most likely uncorrectible at this point in time and certain to lead us to failure. Even planned parenthood most often only considers the most favorable conditions.