|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Zurich15361 Posts
On July 22 2012 21:51 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1b1ke.jpg) And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cf3ee.jpg) I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun.
No, most likely not in England which I believe has among the strictest gun laws in Europe. I am not saying this holds true for every European country either, but certainly for the ones with a gun / population ratio of about 1 to 3, like the German speaking countries, France, and the Nordics. And from what I can tell from this thread, there seems to be a widespread misconceptions about the number of guns and gun owners in those countries - just like there is in Germany.
|
On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold.
Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed.
Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes.
If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick.
|
On July 22 2012 21:58 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:51 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun. No, most likely not in England which I believe has among the strictest gun laws in Europe. I am not saying this holds true for every European country either, but certainly for the ones with a gun / population ratio of about 1 to 3, like the German speaking countries, France, and the Nordics. And from what I can tell from this thread, there seems to be a widespread misconceptions about the number of guns and gun owners in those countries - just like there is in Germany.
crazy... would've never thought 30% of us own guns. Maybe it's just not a topic to talk about?
|
On July 22 2012 22:02 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:58 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:51 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun. No, most likely not in England which I believe has among the strictest gun laws in Europe. I am not saying this holds true for every European country either, but certainly for the ones with a gun / population ratio of about 1 to 3, like the German speaking countries, France, and the Nordics. And from what I can tell from this thread, there seems to be a widespread misconceptions about the number of guns and gun owners in those countries - just like there is in Germany. crazy... would've never thought 30% of us own guns. Maybe it's just not a topic to talk about?
That's because they don't. It's just number of guns divided by number of people. Not the same.
|
This is a pointless discussion based on a kneejerk reaction that blames lack of gun control for the recent killing spree.
The gun situation in the United States is not as simple as "well let's introduce really strict gun control, or ban them altogether!".
After literally centuries of constitutionally guaranteed gun rights, the amount of firearms already in the hands of the public is so huge that any ban will not even put a dent in the availability of illegal weapons.
It's also a gross oversimplification to think that these things wouldn't happen if strict gun laws were introduced. School shootings have happened in Finland, where legal gun ownership is highly controlled. Gun ownership is insanely high in Switzerland, yet there have been no school shootings there. If we were to start a society from scratch, with no worries about what has happened in the past, yes, it may well be much better to have strict gun control or an altogether ban on them. But that's not the case.
The money spent on the anti-gun lobby or some disarming campaign would be much better spent on psychiatric screening of males in their teens to late twenties. The solution to inner city gang violence is not gun control but dealing with the socioeconomic situation that leads to violent gangs. The solution to drug epidemics is not a massive and expensive "war on drugs", but creating environments where people don't easily turn to drugs as their only escape.
Successful, happy, financially and medically secure people are far less likely to turn into crack addicts. Case in point - the Netherlands. Highly lax drug regulation, yet the result:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bSSBA.jpg)
Now, these results don't happen in a vacuum. Getting rid of drug laws is not what leads to less drug use and less crime. The Netherlands is a "welfare state" by American standards. But it does go to show you that if you eliminate extreme income disparity, you reduce crime and drug use so much that even with far more lenient laws on drug use and crime, both occur far less.
|
On July 22 2012 21:40 Saryph wrote:In the state that I live in you can buy a gun at a gun show without having to register it or go through a background check. A concealed carry permit requires filling out a form, paying a small fee, getting a background check by the local cops, and taking an online course.
God that sounds entirely too lax. No offense.
|
On July 22 2012 22:02 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:58 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:51 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun. No, most likely not in England which I believe has among the strictest gun laws in Europe. I am not saying this holds true for every European country either, but certainly for the ones with a gun / population ratio of about 1 to 3, like the German speaking countries, France, and the Nordics. And from what I can tell from this thread, there seems to be a widespread misconceptions about the number of guns and gun owners in those countries - just like there is in Germany. crazy... would've never thought 30% of us own guns. Maybe it's just not a topic to talk about?
The gun to person ratio is guns in the entire country, including the army and hunters etc.
The gun ratio in Canada is 1 in 3 as well, however the ratio of people who actually own a gun is less than 1 in 20, and the ones that do (My grandfather, for one) don't own them for home protection, they use them for hunting or are part of the police force.
|
On July 22 2012 22:06 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:40 Saryph wrote:Gun Control In the state that I live in you can buy a gun at a gun show without having to register it or go through a background check. A concealed carry permit requires filling out a form, paying a small fee, getting a background check by the local cops, and taking an online course. God that sounds entirely too lax. No offense.
I agree with you, I mean come on, an online course, not any time at a range or a class in front of another human?
But yeah, a lot of people from states with stricter gun laws come here to get their guns when they want to commit a crime, and states of course have open borders.
|
On July 22 2012 22:04 yeint wrote:
This is a pointless discussion based on a kneejerk reaction that blames lack of gun control for the recent killing spree.
It's not, you should read more of the thread. I think it is known to everybody here that shootings by maniacs happen, whether you have strict gun laws or not. It happens in Finland, Norway, Germany, USA...
But it's different if you have a fully automatic weapon available or just a handgun. I agree, strict gun laws wont lead to NOONE having an assault rifle but it's much harder and it's more likely that you get caught in the process of acquiring one.
|
On July 22 2012 22:18 Figgy wrote:
The gun to person ratio is guns in the entire country, including the army and hunters etc.
The gun ratio in Canada is 1 in 3 as well, however the ratio of people who actually own a gun is less than 1 in 20, and the ones that do (My grandfather, for one) don't own them for home protection, they use them for hunting or are part of the police force.
it includes army? Ah. pretty pointless, then for this discussion 
Does anybody from Germany know if it is possible to carry a hidden firearm with you as a private person (and maybe member of a private security force)
|
I'm fine with gun ownership as long as people are trained to use it (not just a 3 hour class).
Also, I do believe in limits. I do not see why private citizens need 100 bullet ammo clips for their rifles or 30+ bullet clips for a handgun.
In what twisted world do you need that for self-defense or sport?
|
We really don't need guns legalized anywhere in the world. You see people weilding flick knives these days, you don't want them turning into guns. If guns are easier to get, it will turn from a crime syndicate gun trade to a legal one, and the lesser petty thug criminals will start wielding them. I'm sure organized gun crime will not go up, however, people do get angry and if I'm weilding a gun I will do stupid things.
Making guns more accessable will cause an uprising in suicides. There are times where people think about ending it all but don't end up doing it because they are to scared. If it is one simple pull of the trigger then people might start considering it.
Alot of people don't know the limits in which they are allowed to shoot someone else. Someone might be weilding a knife and the gun weilder might shoot the person... there will be lots of court cases that are fuzzy.
People have a right to defend themselves, but we are human, people get angry, some freedoms shouldn't be allowed if it puts other people at risk. It's for the greater good, and the only people who would actually want a gun law such as this enforced are people who are set on "politically correct" or people who are rednecks.
|
On July 22 2012 22:47 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:18 Figgy wrote:
The gun to person ratio is guns in the entire country, including the army and hunters etc.
The gun ratio in Canada is 1 in 3 as well, however the ratio of people who actually own a gun is less than 1 in 20, and the ones that do (My grandfather, for one) don't own them for home protection, they use them for hunting or are part of the police force. it includes army? Ah. pretty pointless, then for this discussion Does anybody from Germany know if it is possible to carry a hidden firearm with you as a private person (and maybe member of a private security force)
Concealed carry is either illegal pretty much everywhere in Europe, including for private security companies. Some countries have exception for self-defense (czech republic is the only one afaik) but even there its near impossible to obtain.
The only developed nation with 'easy' concealed carry laws is the US.
|
On July 22 2012 22:04 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:02 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 21:58 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:51 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun. No, most likely not in England which I believe has among the strictest gun laws in Europe. I am not saying this holds true for every European country either, but certainly for the ones with a gun / population ratio of about 1 to 3, like the German speaking countries, France, and the Nordics. And from what I can tell from this thread, there seems to be a widespread misconceptions about the number of guns and gun owners in those countries - just like there is in Germany. crazy... would've never thought 30% of us own guns. Maybe it's just not a topic to talk about? That's because they don't. It's just number of guns divided by number of people. Not the same.
This. I'd guess most people that have a gun have more than one gun, so if we suppose that everyone who has a gun has, on average, 3 guns (blalant guess), that means that 10% of the population has guns, not 30%.
|
On July 22 2012 23:08 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:04 Nouar wrote:On July 22 2012 22:02 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 21:58 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:51 turdburgler wrote:On July 22 2012 21:22 zatic wrote:On July 22 2012 21:15 sd_andeh wrote:On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. I can second this. And also that the graphs about Sweden are so incorrect. So basically that would mean that of our 9 million people in Sweden, 3 million of them would have guns? That's so ridiculous. It's probably way lower than 1%. Guns are extremely extremely rare in Sweden so those graphs are so made up. "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States." That doesn't make the graphs incorrect. And I seriously doubt it's less than 1% gun owners. Probably something around 5% of house holds sounds right for a country like Sweden. Which is not a lot compared to the US of course, but it's not like guns are non existent in Europe. It's just that gun ownership seems something so foreign to many Europeans that they simply refuse to believe that there are in fact many gun owners in their own country. I have written about this rather curious phenomenon before: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 that may be the case in germany, but i really find it hard to believe even 5% of people in england have a gun. No, most likely not in England which I believe has among the strictest gun laws in Europe. I am not saying this holds true for every European country either, but certainly for the ones with a gun / population ratio of about 1 to 3, like the German speaking countries, France, and the Nordics. And from what I can tell from this thread, there seems to be a widespread misconceptions about the number of guns and gun owners in those countries - just like there is in Germany. crazy... would've never thought 30% of us own guns. Maybe it's just not a topic to talk about? That's because they don't. It's just number of guns divided by number of people. Not the same. This. I'd guess most people that have a gun have more than one gun, so if we suppose that everyone who has a gun has, on average, 3 guns (blalant guess), that means that 10% of the population has guns, not 30%.
There's also a massive difference in what kinds of weapons you'll find in the hands of the general population between US and europe. Here typically any weapon that isn't suited for hunting is prohibited, such as hand guns and semi-automatic rifles and other such useless things made purely for killing or hurting other people.
|
Zurich15361 Posts
On July 22 2012 22:47 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:18 Figgy wrote:
The gun to person ratio is guns in the entire country, including the army and hunters etc.
The gun ratio in Canada is 1 in 3 as well, however the ratio of people who actually own a gun is less than 1 in 20, and the ones that do (My grandfather, for one) don't own them for home protection, they use them for hunting or are part of the police force. it includes army? Ah. pretty pointless, then for this discussion Does anybody from Germany know if it is possible to carry a hidden firearm with you as a private person (and maybe member of a private security force)
It does not include police and military. Those numbers are for privately owned guns.
Conceiled carry licenses do exist in germany, but only for professionals like body guards. I believe I read somewhere that there are something like 20 licenses issued per year.
|
On July 22 2012 21:37 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 21:32 Nevuk wrote:On July 22 2012 20:13 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 19:35 Nevuk wrote:
edit : and there are probably a half dozen lethal weapons in my house. They're all legal and I was given cursory training by my father (who I live with, kind of pathetic at 23 but that's our generation) in all of them. I know how to handle a pistol, shoot a rifle, aim a bow, fence with a rapier, and fight with a saber. Knives are probably the only thing he didn't cover with me. He wasn't training me to hunt, he was training me in case I ever needed to defend myself or wanted to join the military myself. Off-topic: a saber? dude, that sounds pretty cool ^^ The saber thing, there's two components to that. There's saber style fencing (which I've just done once or twice, it's of zero combat value) and the actual use of sabers, which involves horses. Apparently the reason my father had a saber is that all cavalry officers get them (do all officers get swords? I don't know any other military branches. I just know that for cavalry it's sabers and for a very specific reason), as they're superior weapons to use from horseback. A piercing weapon just gets left behind when you stab someone (or drags you off the horse) but a saber lets you carry the momentum of the horse and your swing behind it. Kind of gruesome, but a very efficient way to eviscerate opposing cavalry or decapitate foot soldiers. Cavalry in this lingo actually means tanks, though. It's just tradition. So I guess I know how to use them from horseback, I know how to ride horses with a saddle and bareback... wow, I guess my upbringing was more bizarre than I thought. I can't do any of those things WELL, but I can DO them. Which I'm guessing is not something most people can say. If I were using a saber in a foot fight I would probably just treat it like fencing with a heavy epee. Incorporating slashing seems inefficient for a number of reasons, lunging + stabbing is almost always the most effective way to use those type of weapons. The actual saber here is far heavier than any of the fencing ones I played around with, heavier than a foil or an Epee. It's just a dress uniform sword but it's still clearly a weapon that was made with the idea that it might wind up being used in combat (very sturdy, probably about 30 years old and the only wear has been on the handle and the blade has intentionally been left dull). No idea if he actually took it into combat or not. He certainly never had to use it even if he did (I don't recall any combatants ever trying to climb into a tank during desert storm). But the idea of an american cavalry officer battling it out with a desert warrior on top of a tank with both using sabers is pretty awesome. Defending a tank would be much easier with a pistol or a shotgun, though
My dad once mentioned that he wouldn't want to use a pistol inside of a tank because the bullet would ricochet everywhere. Never really went into more detail than that. Ideally the tank wouldn't ever have to fear a random foot soldier even if he got on top, and just as ideally they would just blast him away before he got inside even if the entrance was open. If an enemy combatant gets INSIDE of the tank, though... it's apparently a hand to hand thing in extremely cramped conditions. You know... I'm going to go ask him.
Ok, I have no idea why I thought they gave him a saber. He apparently bought it on his own and trained with it just because he felt like it. (He said they stopped giving out swords in ww2 or "something like that", in his words, that officers had to buy their own uniforms even). And basically he was in command of a unit so he would never have actually been in the tank, and his unit never expected to encounter that situation so they never would have trained for it (but he said in today's conditions he would have trained them for it, but that in those days it would only have been done if they expected to encounter disabled tanks that still had a crew in them). He then said that tanks were terrible vehicles for use in urban warfare because so many things can blow them up nowadays (RPGs and apparently even some IEDs) and that they weren't very good for fighting against enemies that could get up close to them, which alleyways and etc. are perfect for, plus they're super expensive to just drive around. Terrible gallons per mile fuel efficiency or something. He told me if I really wanted to know what to do he still had the manual to the tank downstairs, along with a section on "how to operate an m-80 to keep people off of the tank."
edit : sorry, this was way off topic. But some people seemed curious
|
On July 22 2012 23:25 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:47 schaf wrote:On July 22 2012 22:18 Figgy wrote:
The gun to person ratio is guns in the entire country, including the army and hunters etc.
The gun ratio in Canada is 1 in 3 as well, however the ratio of people who actually own a gun is less than 1 in 20, and the ones that do (My grandfather, for one) don't own them for home protection, they use them for hunting or are part of the police force. it includes army? Ah. pretty pointless, then for this discussion Does anybody from Germany know if it is possible to carry a hidden firearm with you as a private person (and maybe member of a private security force) It does not include police and military. Those numbers are for privately owned guns. Conceiled carry licenses do exist in germany, but only for professionals like body guards. I believe I read somewhere that there are something like 20 licenses issued per year.
It seems amazing to me that we would have 20MILLION firearms in France, considering the annual ~3000 war weapons seized each year in France. We don't have that many hunters....
I checked a bit, Wikipedia says this :
Les armes en chiffres
La France compterait légalement 762 331 armes soumises à autorisation (actuelles 1re et 4e catégories), et 2 039 726 armes soumises à déclaration27. Ces chiffres ne prennent en compte que les armes détenues à titre civil, et non celles détenues par l'État pour sa mission régalienne.
D'après une autre étude, 32 % des Français possèderaient une arme à feu. Yves Gollety, président du Syndicat des armuriers, estime que 10 millions d'armes à feu sont actuellement en circulation dans l'Hexagone. « La France est un des pays européens qui compte le plus de chasseurs. C'est une tradition très populaire, contrairement à d'autres pays comme l'Allemagne, où la chasse reste réservée aux élites. »
France would amount to 762331 weapons (1st and 4th category, 1st being war weapons, and 4th small firearms), and 2 million submitted to declaration (5th and 7th : hunting and historic weapons), detained by civilians, and not civil servants.
Another study (already mentioned) spoke about the 32% of French people having one, and hunting weapon estimates are around 10million. We have 1.5million registered hunters, it being a very popular tradition.
Ok, guess I'm wrong about hunters lol.
But from 2.7M weapons, even up to 10million, we are far from 32%.......
post is messy, I'm in a hurry, sorry.
|
Organised crime and gangs get guns in the UK, and they're banned here so surely letting everyone have them would reduce the power of the crime people at the top, but open the problem up to a bunch of crazy people who rather than punching the shit out of someone might just shoot them
|
On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick.
That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.'
How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact?
You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out?
How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize.
People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass.
For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people?
Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god.
Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
