Gun laws.

[Mathurin]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

 

[wgreer25]

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

You are correct in that the problem is that guns are in the wrong hands. There is something you don't seem to understand. Maybe because of a limited view of this country (don't trust any media from here, it is very liberal and one sided) The gun control laws that congress has already put in place and new more restrictive laws DO NOT keep guns out of the wrong hands. As someone else mentioned earlier, Washington DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but is also the murder capital of the country. I am not opposed to gun contol, but let it be gun control that makes sense and is proven to stop crime. See my above post. Maybe you need to live here to relize that some of the people we vote for are absolute blithering idiots. Can it not be defined as moronic if after a gun control law is passed - crime goes up - pass more gun control laws, repeat same pattern, lather, rinse, repeat???? Again, see the link in my above post.

You made comments on possible solutions. Fighting drugs, police education in schools. A lot of the comments you made are done. In many schools there is a police presence. I graduated from high school in 1994 (yeah, I'm old) and back then we had an officer on campus 24/7. Your comment of non-lethal measures as crime deturants, they are used all the time. I have a brother-in-law who is an officer, he has used rubber bullets as opposed to lethal measures. And to your comment that a single murder doesn't get any media attention, well that is just not true. Local and National media do examine single homicides. The multipules just seem to get more air time. In my town, the local media will definately have a story of a single homicide (unfortunately). I think you are making conclusions based on media hype about the US and not actual knowledge of the country. You comment on the "war" on terroism. Well you may be surprised to know that the majority of this country wants our troops to come home, and I think the election in November will show that. I think you make a good point, that we are focusing on the wrong things, but what you may not realize is that too much effort can be put into a thing like gun contol when it is proven that gun control does nothing here in the states.

 

[T.H.O.R]

BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

True. However, with my military and firearm experience, I knew that (I'm pretty sure that your comment was intended to inform those who might have thought beanbags were a purely non-lethal solution). But I would like to say that none of the three criminals were killed, though I'm sure each one had badly bruised, or cracked ribs after the ordeal.


I'd also like to add that I spend a fair amount of time in the States each year. 4-5 months.
My half brother lives in Texas and thus I like to be there to see him and my young niece. Another chunk of time is spent in Georgia, where my wife has some family. And then yet another chunk in California just to get some quality beach/surf time in(And occasionally snowboarding).

I believe those are three different extremes of the States, and I will just end it with; Most of the perceived views of America from some other countries is exactly that: perceived The media ruins the image of the U.S.A.

There are a lot of great places in the country...but the media doesn't seem content with the good of America, they have to dig out the dirt.

 

[Mathurin]

Correct on all counts THOR, figured you knew but not everybody does

Though from my perceptions, I would be scared to defend myself in europe, have heard some stories of that going badly for people.

How did the fallout go down, were the cops nice or accusatory, did the fact that you used beanbags make a significant difference?

 

[Silver]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

The difference is huge. The difference is bloody life and death, and the fact that Mr. Horn confronted robbers in another house. I see that as a pretty darned huge difference. From what I read he also confronted them on their way out. If he'd have just stayed put where he should he wouldn't have gotten attacked, and those people wouldn't be dead. Dead. Do you know what that word means?

Also, not to belay the seriousness of your example wgreer.

But I always find myself chuckling when they say "Saved 100s of lives" as if the gunmen are always carrying over 100 rounds.

Yeah, I didn't really credit this media source as being very well writen, just something to get a point across. But here is something interesting...

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

I would like to comment on some of the Anti-American sentiments that have been thrown about. To say we are an example of what how a country has gone bad is a little harsh. I would think Burma or Darfur would be worthy of that title. The biggest problem with the US is also the reason the US is great, freedom. To explain, we are free to have the NAAPC and the KKK march side by side. You may hate it, but it is wonderful thing to be free enough to do it. We are free to own guns, but there is gun violence. You might want to take a close look at the laws that you think keep you safe, but in reality are robbing you of freedom. "None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free." Unfortunately, there are many political movements now in the US to take away more of our freedoms (like guns and freedom of speech). But at the same time there are many good forward thinking movements as well. I have a very good freind who is gay, and I would like to think that she has very benifit from a civil union that I have in my marriage. CA just made it legal. So what I'm saying is that the freedom we enjoy is a blessing and a curse, I will take it over many of the other alternatives out there.

I would again like to comment that I appreciate all of the intelligent informed responses. It is very nice to have a smart/civil discussion. Exercise for the brain.

Sure, freedom is good. But freedom can exist in different forms.

In Sweden too almost anyone who feels they really need or want a gun can get one. The KKK can march around as much as they want, and other organisations can protest against them as much as they want too. The difference is that here it isn't dangerous.

Up until very recently, with the FRA-law, I would have said that your statement that "You might want to take a close look at the laws that you think keep you safe, but in reality are robbing you of freedom. "None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free." " was completely false. Now I can't, sure out of everyone I've talked to only two people (except for the politicians that voted for it) are for the law. Everyone else is against it, there are several organisations started that oppose the law. This law is robbing us of our freedom, but none of us believe it will keep us safe, and not many will sit idly by and let it stick. I believe in freedom, to an extent. I believe in freedom if you prove you can handle it. I don't believe in sticking a gun in someones hands and then see how they handle it, I believe in testing the person first, that goes for many other things as well (not saying that's how it happens in America).


Mathurin, I know colt is a weapons manufacturer. I know it's not a specific weapon. I should have known I needed to specify exactly which model I meant becase apparently that makes all the difference in the world when someone is killed. My apologies. I admit that I was of the faulty perception that it didn't matter if you were killed by a nine-millimeter Sig Sauer P226 X-Five Tactical with a 15-round magazine or an ak-47. To me you'd be just as dead in either case. To me it wouldn't really matter which one shot my best friend, I would be devastated anyway, but since it's so important to you, I'll really try to specify exactly what kind of weapon I mean next time. Sorry.

Edit: Oh, shit. I made another mistake. An Ak-47 (7.62 mm assault rifle made by Izhmash and designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov) is an assault rifle and not a handgun, it's worlds different, it's like a tank blowing up a bar.


The Americans live in fear part was in response to a person here saying just that. An American. Reinforced by accounts from friends that have been to America. Apparently, when you're trying to sleep in your hotel room, gun shots aren't that sooting. You learn something new every day.

And no, not Stalin. His views were completely screwed up. He killed thousands of people. I value human life far more than that, and I value human lives far more than your right to shoot your neighbour if he steps onto your lawn.


The broken leg was also an example. Say you have an infection instead, or say you have a disease or need an operation. Not all people are going to be able to afford that. Free schooling here really means free schooling. You get free schooling until you're ready for a career.


"Safety is not what we seek, we seek liberty, liberty is dangerous, because while I have the liberty to do what I want, so do others, and what they want may hurt me.

Dont forget who started this war"

I repeat the quote from the bible and raise you the next part. "How can you say to your brother, ?Let me remove that splinter from your eye,? while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother?s eye."

And yes, I know who started the war. You did. America did. Don't try arguing for anything else. America started that war.


Your perception of liberty and mine are also different. You percieve liberty as the freedom of being allowed to do whatever the hell you want. I perceive it as the freedom to be able to do whatever the hell you want. But I also think complete liberity is wrong. It can only be as long as it concerns you. As soon as it starts to hurt anyone else, it's gone to far, and you infringe on that persons liberty. Taking a life is crossing that life almost as far as possible.

 

[Mathurin]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

The difference is huge. The difference is bloody life and death, and the fact that Mr. Horn confronted robbers in another house. I see that as a pretty darned huge difference. From what I read he also confronted them on their way out. If he'd have just stayed put where he should he wouldn't have gotten attacked, and those people wouldn't be dead. Dead. Do you know what that word means?

You are talking about the difference in the ending, I am talking about the difference in the situation.

the difference in the situation
Thor confronted criminals inside his house and shot them with bean bags
Horn confronted criminals OUTSIDE someone elses house and shot them with lead shot.

Both is confronting criminals, the difference is that horn did it outside, and did not have bean bags
I should mention that THORs bean bags can be lethal, so while we can look back now and say the difference is life and death, before the confrontation it could have been life and death.

Is it wrong to confront criminals, or only wrong outside of ones own property?
Thor could have stayed in his bedroom, was he wrong to seek out the criminals and confront them?

I believe in freedom if you prove you can handle it. I don't believe in sticking a gun in someones hands and then see how they handle it, I believe in testing the person first, that goes for many other things as well (not saying that's how it happens in America).

Doesnt work that way.
Either you are free, and will be free until the gov can prove through "due process" that you are not capable, or you arent.
There is case law on this from the days of Jim crow (racist laws) the whites used "literacy tests" to make blacks prove their ability to vote. Doesnt work that way

Mathurin, I know colt is a weapons manufacturer. I know it's not a specific weapon. I should have known I needed to specify exactly which model I meant becase apparently that makes all the difference in the world when someone is killed. My apologies. I admit that I was of the faulty perception that it didn't matter if you were killed by a nine-millimeter Sig Sauer P226 X-Five Tactical with a 15-round magazine or an ak-47. To me you'd be just as dead in either case. To me it wouldn't really matter which one shot my best friend, I would be devastated anyway, but since it's so important to you, I'll really try to specify exactly what kind of weapon I mean next time. Sorry.

Edit: Oh, shit. I made another mistake. An Ak-47 (7.62 mm assault rifle made by Izhmash and designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov) is an assault rifle and not a handgun, it's worlds different, it's like a tank blowing up a bar.

I wasnt trying to be a dick, its just that in my experience people who dislike guns know very little about them.
A rifle and a handgun do differ, but again its not as significantly as some might think, buit it was all good

The Americans live in fear part was in response to a person here saying just that. An American. Reinforced by accounts from friends that have been to America. Apparently, when you're trying to sleep in your hotel room, gun shots aren't that sooting. You learn something new every day.

Its not just you, I have heard it many times.
I used to live in the country, when I heard gunshots I knew the neighbor was practicing.

There are high crime and scary areas, but in general the US is safe

And no, not Stalin. His views were completely screwed up. He killed thousands of people. I value human life far more than that, and I value human lives far more than your right to shoot your neighbour if he steps onto your lawn.

You would make people prove their worthiness to a inherent right, its authoritarian and that is what he was.
I dont have a right to shoot my neighbor for stepping on my lawn, strawman

The broken leg was also an example. Say you have an infection instead, or say you have a disease or need an operation. Not all people are going to be able to afford that. Free schooling here really means free schooling. You get free schooling until you're ready for a career.

Low level care is typically very inexpensive, and most hospitals take the medical ethics of care very seriously, they treat them for free. Operations require work, but they are also possible to find for minimal cost through universities and such, there are also free clinics both gov and private charity sponsored.
Dont think that I dont have compassion, but they do have options, I see no need to make it a government responsibility.

"ready for a career" is so subjective, at 17 you are ready to serve chips

Ultimately, someone pays, but we are off topic and I doubt this capitalistic american and you the welfare state european will see eye to eye on this.

"Safety is not what we seek, we seek liberty, liberty is dangerous, because while I have the liberty to do what I want, so do others, and what they want may hurt me.

Dont forget who started this war"

I repeat the quote from the bible and raise you the next part. "How can you say to your brother, ?Let me remove that splinter from your eye,? while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother?s eye."

And yes, I know who started the war. You did. America did. Don't try arguing for anything else. America started that war.

I would, but I am going to drop this, it will take up precious gun debating time.

Your perception of liberty and mine are also different. You percieve liberty as the freedom of being allowed to do whatever the hell you want. I perceive it as the freedom to be able to do whatever the hell you want. But I also think complete liberity is wrong. It can only be as long as it concerns you. As soon as it starts to hurt anyone else, it's gone to far, and you infringe on that persons liberty. Taking a life is crossing that life almost as far as possible.

Yes, the "your right to do what you want ends where my rights begin"
That is correct and I agree.
however you have misapplied it here.
But first I want to hit on the "allowed" vs "able" thing.
I understand what you mean, BUT, when able gives the government obscene amounts of power, its just not worth it.


Anyway, an individuals right to life ends when they threaten my right to life.
The typical boundary for self defense in america (it depends on the state) is "would a reasonable person in that situation fear for their life, or severe injury"

A law cannot grant me liberty to live, if I am not allowed to defend that life against others who wish to take it.

 

[T.H.O.R]

Correct on all counts THOR, figured you knew but not everybody does

How did the fallout go down, were the cops nice or accusatory, did the fact that you used beanbags make a significant difference?

In an odd way of saying it; it went very peacefully. Classical Opera music could have been playing in the background, and the scene moving in slow motion...would have been perfect for a film.

I exited the bedroom and happened to be at the back of all three of them in my media/entertainment/computer room...I politely asked them to turn around, keeping the shotgun leveled. As you'd expect they were startled, and a bit uneasy to be looking down the barrel of such a beautiful weapon. The woman seemed to panic and reach for the pistol in her belt and so I adjusted my sights and fired. She fell down...

One of the men moved to help her, and the other reached for his side-arm..I pumped, aimed, and fired (I make it sound like this is a slow process, but it all happened in just about 10 seconds) He went down. The third held his hands up high above his head as I pumped another bag into the chamber. About this time my wife came through the media door..and the last burglar and I shared the same thought at the same time..he looked at her and started to move, and I fired without even thinking...there was a loud snap as the bag made contact with his ribs from about 15 meters away, and he crumpled to the floor. My wife then realized she'd come out the wrong door at the wrong time. We apprehended their weapons, my wife tended the one bleeding wound (the woman of the three had fallen onto a glass coffee table and cut herself pretty badly)...a few minutes later, the police knocked on my door.

They didn't really give me any trouble, but that's also because when my wife phoned the police she told them that I was armed, ex-military, and prepared to handle the situation.

They kindly thanked me for my service, handcuffed the criminals, and took them to the station. I was compensated for my losses about 3 months later.

I think the police would have been a bit less happy had I used slugs, or buck-shot (the other types of shotgun ammunition I keep around). I loaded bean-bags

Though from my perceptions, I would be scared to defend myself in europe, have heard some stories of that going badly for people.

Norway is in Scandinavia not Europe.

 

[The_Major]

Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

I entirely agree with you about educating kids about firearms. A lot of kids around here are constantly getting arrested and done with ASBO's and some even end up in juvie. A lot of them now are carrying knives which worried me even more. They just don't have the slightest clue at all. And it's idiots like them that make me and other responsible weapon owners look bad. It also seems to give those who are against something to preach to you about.

Although I may not nor have I ever belonged to any military outfit, I'm more than capable of using guns as I too have grown up around them. I also have a Shotgun Licence and I'm applying for a Firearms certificate pretty soon. Plus they're a part of my job also, my father is a Gamekeeper and I'm his assistant somewhat.

But it is very difficult for anyone here in the UK to get a licence due to a mass of restrictions which sprung up after the handgun ban. We get frequent checks from the local Firearms Officer who is a very nice man I must say, who helps us with all the processes included with owning, buying, selling and storage of our guns.

And before I stop, I have to say I'm a girl. And damn proud that I'm a good shot! ^_^

 

[werepossum]

Get better public healthcare and education, going with a Swedish or Norwegian approach. Free education, and free healthcare if you need it (if you break your leg you're going to need help no matter what kind of health insurance program you've selected, and if you can pay then great, if not, you still need help, and you get it). With free education comes oppurtunity, oppurtunity for something better. Something other than selling drugs and shooting rival gangs.

I'd also stop waging wars all around the word until I had my own country under control. Not before citizens of my own country can feel safe and sound, can walk the streets without fearing for their lives can I offer safety to other countries, especially not in a violent way. There's a good quote in the bible, one of few good ones in that book, (and one that many of the people reading it could really take more to heart) "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?". I find it pretty appropriate in regard to Americas war on terror, everyone in the country is afraid, and not very safe. How can you offer safety to the rest of the world then? And yes, not it actually turned much from gun laws and into America, but still.

So how is it that when France and Great Britain needed help regaining and maintaining their freedom from Nazi Germany they turned to evil, Bible-thumping, homicidal America where everyone is afraid (not to mention Russia!) and not to enlightened Sweden with its sane, well-educated people and its effective gun laws? How is it that enlightened Sweden helped Nazi Germany with steel and other raw materials, and gave them transport to invade Norway, whereas the poor terrified and victimized Americans fought them tooth and nail? Could it be that (gasp) freedom, even with all its warts, might in the end be worth more than prosperity?

If you think your country is the greatest in the world, fine. If you think its laws and customs should be enforced worldwide, fine. If you think our Constitution is outdated and should be thrown out, fine. If you think the Bible is a useless musty old book, fine. You have the right to be an ignorant asshole if that's your desire. After all, American and British and Canadian and Australian and Indian and French and Polish soldiers fought and died to keep that right for you. Maybe they should have stopped by and told you they were fighting for freedom and liberty and not for free health care; I suppose they thought it was understood.

Maybe when the terrorists show up at Sweden's door, they'll settle for a ride into Norway. Personally I think a country should do something more when confronted by evil than roll over and show its belly, but hey, maybe that's just me.

 

[Robertbobby91]

more guns. Teh end.

The domino theory didn't work for communism and it doesn't work for shoot-everyone-omg.

If everyone had a gun, you don't shoot, because you know what would happen.

It's the Tesla way of life.

 

[Silver]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

I must ask if I'm the only one that sees the difference here. I can't be. To me there is a huge difference between arming yourself with a non-lethal weapon (that yes, can prove deadly under the wrong circumstances) and confront criminals in your own home than to arm yourself with a lethal weapon (try to shoot someone with a bloody shotgun and make them survive if you're using live ammo) and walk out the door to confront criminals that were inside your neighbour's house after a police officer has told you repetitively to not to that. If no one agrees with me that the situation is completely different I will shut up about it (and probably be really fucking scared).

You say a law cannot grant someone right to live if you're not allowed to defend yourself. I have no problem with defending oneself for a legitimate reason. Running out the door to confront two criminals is in my eyes pushing it way beyond that. If someone tries to rob you on the street with a gun and you defend yourself, accidently killing that person in the process, if you're taken hostage and threatened to your life, sure. If someone pulls a gun on you inside your own house, yes. But when you put yourself at risk by getting involved in something that isn't your business (a police officer telling you to not getting involved several times makes it bloody well not your business) that's fucking pushing things. If I walked up and punched a person with a gun in the face I would fear for my life. Killing that person then still isn't right, even thought I'm technically defending myself (if my intent was to just punch that person and then walk away). Sure, I'm still in for assault, but the murder is okay, or what?

I also think you misunderstood my take on liberty but that's not for this thread. It wouldn't give the government any obscene amounts of power.


T.H.O.R., Scandinavia is in Europe


Werepossum, you misunderstand. I don't think Sweden is a great country, I'm by no means a patriot. I think it's an awful country, that has commited horrendous acts of inhumanity. I don't however think that what Sweden did in the second world war was wrong. Especially not since Sweden was the country to take in most of the refugees that sought a safe place to live. Swedens military at that time would have been able to hold out for about 1 hour. BUT in doing so they would have endangered many, hundreds of civilian's lives. They would also have endangered the welfare of the country, the living standards of the people living here. Sacrificing hundreds of soldiers, civilians, and resources in a futile fight is not something I condone, not when it can be avoided. If I would have been in charge I would have done the same. DESPITE this, if I had the choice of a location in the world to live today it would most likely be Sweden, because even thought it's not perfect, it's not what I would want, it is better than many of the alternatives.

This doesn't mean I think what the Nazis did was right, I think they should be opposed as much as possible, but only when that isn't a futile sacrifice of life. A token resistance that only costs the lives of the ones they oppose is not something I condone. You might think that dying for one's country and sending people to die for one's country is okay, even if nothing happens and the country get's overrun anyway. I don't believe in fighting if you don't have a chance to win, or if not win, then at least help the situation for the better. Fighting just for the sake of it, and sacrificing a lot of lives for no result doesn't go well in my book.

The reason Sweden did this and people came running to America wasn't because of the views of the nations. It was because of their armies. America has always had a huge army, the last time Sweden had that was 300 years ago (or 500, I can't remember). If you're being attacked by a bully in a schoolyard you go talk to a teacher, even if that teacher isn't nice, you don't go to your five-year younger, disabled sister for help. The teacher has the power to stop the bully, hopefully. Your sister might want to help, but a bully would just turn over her wheelchair and keep stomping on your head.

 

[T.H.O.R]

T.H.O.R., Scandinavia is in Europe

Sorry I misunderstood the interpretation there. Whenever someone says something about being part of Europe, they generally imply that we use the Euro, and have some sort of governmental tie to Britain. And that's not the case. I'm used to dealing with your typical everyday American Joe that honestly doesn't know the difference between Europe, and Britain.

 

[Robertbobby91]

why would a dangerous person risk it if everyone owned a gun?

 

[AnGeL.SLayer]

I'm kinda surprised by many people's train of thought on this issue. Honestly, if I was going to kill someone, really gonna do it, then I would do it, with or out without a gun in my hand. It is just a tool and should not be viewed as anything more or less. To point the finger at guns is childish to say the least. If you fell down on the playground and hurt your knee on the slide, do you blame the slide? Children think like that because they cannot find the emotions or reason to blame themselves for messing up.


^_^

 

[Mathurin]

I must ask if I'm the only one that sees the difference here. I can't be. To me there is a huge difference between arming yourself with a non-lethal weapon (that yes, can prove deadly under the wrong circumstances) and confront criminals in your own home than to arm yourself with a lethal weapon (try to shoot someone with a bloody shotgun and make them survive if you're using live ammo) and walk out the door to confront criminals that were inside your neighbour's house after a police officer has told you repetitively to not to that. If no one agrees with me that the situation is completely different I will shut up about it (and probably be really fucking scared).

I have always said the situations were different, but where you see the atlantic ocean I see the english channels worth of difference.

Horn did not have less-than lethal ammunition available. I am fuzzy on american law in this respect but I think that the US law still considers a shotgun loaded with bean bags to be lethal force, so legally there would be no difference.
Ask the guy that Cheney shot how to survive a shotgun blast, with birdshot at least.


You place a great deal of weight on "other peoples house"


A criminal is engaged in a criminal activity, you have a safe place and have called the police, is exiting that safe place with a weapon in order to confront the criminal a bad thing to do?
Please answer this with some directness.

I believe this reasonably describes both situations, I am trying to discover what exactly about the difference you have a problem with.
If THOR had been forced to kill 2 of the criminals (who were apparently armed, even though the nation has gun control)would you still think his actions were justifiable.
Is a person only allowed to confront criminals on their own property, or in defense of their own property?

You say a law cannot grant someone right to live if you're not allowed to defend yourself. I have no problem with defending oneself for a legitimate reason. Running out the door to confront two criminals is in my eyes pushing it way beyond that. If someone tries to rob you on the street with a gun and you defend yourself, accidently killing that person in the process, if you're taken hostage and threatened to your life, sure. If someone pulls a gun on you inside your own house, yes. But when you put yourself at risk by getting involved in something that isn't your business (a police officer telling you to not getting involved several times makes it bloody well not your business) that's fucking pushing things.

A dispatcher told him, a dispatcher is a police officer in diapers, he was under no obligation to do what the dispatcher told him. He was watching a crime in progress, he confronted 2 criminals.
what should those criminals have done?
They should have run away, if he shoots them then it is a crime
they should have surrendered, if he shoots them it is a crime
Instead they attacked, allowing him to defend his own life, and while defending his life he killed them.

If he had hit one in the chest and he was still alive, yet horn walked over and blasted him again as he lay on the ground, that is illegal.

If a cop had behaved exactly as this person did, then you would think nothing of it
Why hold citizens to a higher standard

If I walked up and punched a person with a gun in the face I would fear for my life. Killing that person then still isn't right, even thought I'm technically defending myself (if my intent was to just punch that person and then walk away). Sure, I'm still in for assault, but the murder is okay, or what?

This is stretching
You created a situation.
Now, if you are in a fistfight and someone pulls a deadly weapon, then yeah, you can defend yourself with deadly force.
Nobody said it wouldnt be a hairy law, thats why we have courts, nothing is ever clear cut in the law.

I also think you misunderstood my take on liberty but that's not for this thread. It wouldn't give the government any obscene amounts of power.

Well, as far as i am concerned, most european government already have obscene power, their citizens have traded personal liberty for wealth, safety, and protection from commerce, they just havent noticed it yet.

The reason Sweden did this and people came running to America wasn't because of the views of the nations. It was because of their armies. America has always had a huge army, the last time Sweden had that was 300 years ago (or 500, I can't remember). If you're being attacked by a bully in a schoolyard you go talk to a teacher, even if that teacher isn't nice, you don't go to your five-year younger, disabled sister for help. The teacher has the power to stop the bully, hopefully. Your sister might want to help, but a bully would just turn over her wheelchair and keep stomping on your head.

uuuuhhhh

not sure what you are talking about here, but pre-WWII US military sucked, it was undermanned and under supplied, so unless the discussion is about the cold war then you are wrong.

 

[werepossum]

Werepossum, you misunderstand. I don't think Sweden is a great country, I'm by no means a patriot. I think it's an awful country, that has commited horrendous acts of inhumanity. I don't however think that what Sweden did in the second world war was wrong. Especially not since Sweden was the country to take in most of the refugees that sought a safe place to live. Swedens military at that time would have been able to hold out for about 1 hour. BUT in doing so they would have endangered many, hundreds of civilian's lives. They would also have endangered the welfare of the country, the living standards of the people living here. Sacrificing hundreds of soldiers, civilians, and resources in a futile fight is not something I condone, not when it can be avoided. If I would have been in charge I would have done the same. DESPITE this, if I had the choice of a location in the world to live today it would most likely be Sweden, because even thought it's not perfect, it's not what I would want, it is better than many of the alternatives.

This doesn't mean I think what the Nazis did was right, I think they should be opposed as much as possible, but only when that isn't a futile sacrifice of life. A token resistance that only costs the lives of the ones they oppose is not something I condone. You might think that dying for one's country and sending people to die for one's country is okay, even if nothing happens and the country get's overrun anyway. I don't believe in fighting if you don't have a chance to win, or if not win, then at least help the situation for the better. Fighting just for the sake of it, and sacrificing a lot of lives for no result doesn't go well in my book.

The reason Sweden did this and people came running to America wasn't because of the views of the nations. It was because of their armies. America has always had a huge army, the last time Sweden had that was 300 years ago (or 500, I can't remember). If you're being attacked by a bully in a schoolyard you go talk to a teacher, even if that teacher isn't nice, you don't go to your five-year younger, disabled sister for help. The teacher has the power to stop the bully, hopefully. Your sister might want to help, but a bully would just turn over her wheelchair and keep stomping on your head.

America was ranked seventeenth in Army strength in 1933. We demobilized heavily and rapidly after the Great War, because America was (and somewhat remains) fundamentally isolationist. Until we began to arm again in 1936 - when it became apparent to many that we would have war with Japan and possibly with Germany - the US Army was regularly under 100,000 even though it was legally allowed up to 125,000 enlisted. Not even three full divisions could be stood up and armed. US military expenditures were extraordinarily low, and our arms were sadly out of date. (One reason we were able to arm with the superior M-1 rifle is because we had so few existing modern rifles.) Our machine guns were outdated, our armor was outdated and almost nonexistent, our cavalry was almost entirely horse - only our Navy and Air Corps were even close to being in the same class as Japan or Germany, France or Britain and its empire.

Great Britain's empire was only marginally threatened, but it came to the aid of Poland, France, and Belgium and fought Germany and Italy largely by itself because it was the right thing to do. America came late - but we DID come, and took over a million casualties. Great Britain and the Commonwealth (primarily Canada, Australia, India, and Scotland) fought Germany almost to a standstill even when France and Belgium unexpectedly caved. Sweden was small, true - but more than twice the size of Denmark. Denmark fought its heart out, and in my opinion at least is a better country for it. Had Sweden - the source of much of Germany's weapons steel - and Norway and Finland stood with Great Britain, there would probably have been no need for American involvement in Europe at all, and certainly not if France and Belgium had had the guts to fight even knowing they might well lose.

My point is not particularly to condemn Sweden, but rather to point out that the policies you profess - non-violence, disarmament, unwillingness to address evil - are a microcosm of the same policies that led Sweden to its reality of becoming Germany's satellite state. Had Germany won the war, do you doubt Sweden would have been no more than a province of Germany? Similarly, a man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature. An armed society may be more dangerous than a completely disarmed society, if such can exist, but being armed allows a man (or woman) to be on roughly equal terms with a criminal. Put another way, the average man or woman armed with a baseball bat is easy prey to a dozen thugs with baseball bats, but the average man or woman armed with a 12 ga Remington 1100 is probably going to be left alone by a dozen thugs with 12 ga Remington 1100s. Guns are the great equalizer between criminal and victim.

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil. Small countries that will not stand together against evil can be easily gobbled up a bite at a time; small countries that fight (e.g. Denmark - or Israel) may still be gobbled up, but at least cause a bit of discomfort and bleed the aggressor's strength. Poland fought for a month with wooden lances and bolt-action rifles against tanks and machine guns, knowing they were going to lose but giving their lives trying to hold onto freedom. Having lost their freedom for decades at a time, you won't find a country that more appreciates freedom's worth. Freedom is messy and dangerous to all concerned whether it's people or countries, and I still very much prefer it.

 

[T.H.O.R]

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil.

Like Beauty. Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Copter400]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

Well, the basic premise is that whilst Joe and Jane average would give up their guns because they're law abiding citizens, criminals are not, so they wouldn't walk into a police station and hand their gun over (big surprise).

People seem to think that police won't be able to do shit about armed criminals, so they think armed homicides will increase.

But people forget that if everyone doesn't have a gun, then no one has any real reason to actually shoot anyone, when they could just knock 'em out... because they won't be afriad of them having a gun.

Copter: there is no 'equation', there is cold reality. In the UK, banning handguns caused gun violence to double. Banning handguns in Jamaica led to out of control gun violence. Enacting more restrictive gun laws in Hawaii resulted in a sharp increase in violent crime.

Think about Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Now imagine that with handguns instead of alcohol or drugs.

I would like to see some evidence. In Australia, where we do have strict gun control, you rarely hear about violent shootouts.

 

[werepossum]

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil.

Like Beauty. Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree. Good and Evil are in the eyes of G-d. How clearly the beholder distinguishes them is of course dependent on human failings - we have a disturbing tendency to attribute to G-d a desire for us to have our way.

 

[T.H.O.R]

Well you only disagree in theory. Given that you believe that there is a higher power which decides what is good or evil. Thus you follow a group of people that hold a similar ideal of Good and evil, whereas a different group of people with different ideals may or may not feel that something completely different designates what's good, and what's evil.

Thus, in full circle, eye of the beholder. Let's not bring religion into it. I think it's safer to say, that "my group of people believe _____" than "Deity X" and "Deity Z"