Yep, this is what going mad feels like.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, January 14, 2008 06:29
VIEWED: 16243
PAGE 1 of 3
UK to ban samurai swords.
Original URL -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071213/od_nm/ swords_dc&printer=1;_ylt=Asm6LsYRMUzmfyRxLrBWPBgZ.3QA
(spaced to avoid screen stretch)
STORY TEXT
===========
Banning samurai swords Thu Dec 13, 10:30 AM ET
The government said Wednesday it would ban the sale of samurai swords because the weapons had been used in a number of serious, high-profile attacks.
The Home Office said the swords would be added to the Offensive Weapons Order from April next year, meaning they could not be imported, sold or hired.
However collectors of genuine Japanese swords and those used by martial arts enthusiasts would be exempt from the ban.
"In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons," Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said.
"We recognize it is the cheap, easily available samurai swords which are being used in crime and not the genuine more expensive samurai swords which are of interest to collectors and martial arts enthusiasts."
The Association of Chief Police Officers said the swords were not a common weapon but they had been used in a number of significant incidents.
In 2000, Robert Ashman murdered a Liberal Democrat councilor at the offices of Cheltenham MP Nigel Jones, who was also seriously hurt in the attack.
A year earlier, Eden Strang seriously wounded 11 people when he went on the rampage with a samurai sword at a Roman Catholic Church near his home in Thornton Heath, south London.
(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Tim Castle)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now for the obligatory Dark Humor bit...
Obviously the church was a "sword free zone" and if someone had been packin some steel of their own things mighta come to a different conclusion.
*sarcasm*
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
that's just..I'm sorry man.
ok, so what if one of the 'collectors of genuine samurai swords' is a complete psycho and uses one of his 'genuine samurai swords' to go to town on a group of unsuspecting innocent people, or does a thomas crown and uses it in a plot to steal something, getting rid of the guards on the way? it just seems stupid to ban swords EXCEPT for a select few. @_@
__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."
A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, that's just what we need - a return to the old west. Fastest gun wins.
***************************************************************
And peace in our time.
Not.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently there's a typo in the constitution; we just aren't sure whether the founding fathers wanted us to have the right to bare arms or perhaps the right to have the arms of a bear. Obviously, we shouldn't be having weapons of any sort; clearly we cannot be trusted with such things. Nor steak knives. Forks... no, no forks. Perhaps a spork. For now.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
O wait, I'm tired. I didn't read closely; that's the UK. Well, that explains things. Ignore that previous post.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tired. HHHmmph ! No excuse for you ! Here I am feverish - I would gladly use some of that conventional medicine if only I wasn't allergic to it --- and I'm posting. And so is Frem, and in much worse shape that I could even imagine being. So : drags LeadB by the ear : what do you have to say for yourself, young man ?
Anyway, my posting before was rather short, but I was hoping in an indirect way to allude to the fact that murder rates in the UK are very low compared with the US. It has something to do with it being so much harder to murder someone with a sword - or butter-knife, or screwdriver - than point and shoot. An' I don't mean camera-wise.
Speaking of cameras. got to get on with the x-mas shopping ....
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'm a sword enthusiast, so you can imagine my thoughts on this:
YOU MORONIC ASSHOLES. 
Okay, you outlaw cheap 'sam-yoo-rye' swords. Fine. Next year you'll see psychos with European swords. So you'll outlaw those. See how all the British reenactment and western martial arts groups respond to that.
Then you'll see psychos with...oh fuck I dunno, Chinese tai chi swords. Or Thai dharbs. Or Egyptian khopeshes. Or African takoubas.
Yeah, you try and take those sgian dubhs from the Scots, see what happens.
And as far as 'cheap' goes, there's a whole spectrum of prices, from $30 stainless steel junkers to $400 bamboo cutters to $9000 nihonto. Google Rick Barrett or Peter Johnsson and tell me you wanna outlaw their art. Where's the fucking cutoff you ignorant polifucks?
Criminals will always find tools with which to commit crimes. Honest enthusiasts of all budgets who understand the inherent deadliness of swords are the least likely to misuse them (probably due to personal experience. Ouch!).
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but venting is good, right? 
Shameless plug: Here are some of mine 
:
http://www.angelfire.com/fang/invicta/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eric - I agree, mostly. But by extension since 'criminals will always get weapons', why not just let everyone have nukes ? At a certain point the logic breaks down. And what I don't agree with (which is an opinion you didn't express but was expressed elsewhere) is the vision that arming everyone to the teeth will make us all safer.
The US was there - it was called the Old West. And most people who lived back then were in favor of the law ending the mayhem.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Eric - I agree, mostly. But by extention since 'criminals will always get wespons', why not just let everyone have nukes ? At a certain point the logic breaks down. And what I don't agree with (which is an opinion you didn't express but was expressed elsewhere) is the mentality that arming everyone to the teeth will make us all safer.
Well you're right about that, but I think an important distinction is that sword collectors have no intention of their swords actually ever being used for their original purpose, which is to kill people. Can't speak for anyone else, but for me the thrill of swinging exquisitely balanced sharp steel around, slicing through boxes, and just ogling the gorgeous craftsmanship of a truly historical reproduction is the apogee of the hobby. Can't say that with modern weapons, really.
I think the slippery slope from nukes down to steak knives needs to be cut off at the point of pragmatic effectiveness, where you can answer the question of whether this really is preventing crimes or just letting politicians look like they're preventing crimes so they can win re-election. It's not an easy question, and I can't claim to be unbiased, but the idea that I can't be trusted with my $800, 1075 monosteel, custom-colored grip, distal-tapered, Oakeshott blade Type XVIa, pommel type J, crossguard type 2, 14th-century longsword...why that's just silly.
Edit: I DO think those crappy sharpened stainless steel swords, of whatever style, should not be sold, because the very nature of stainless steel makes it very brittle, and at 'sword' lengths are very likely to shatter and injure bystanders if some idiot tries to cut something with it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've read about the making of samurai swords. Do you have a genuine one ?
***************************************************************
added - People are still trying to figure out how much of that was metallurgy and how much vodoo. It's fascinating.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geeze Rap, what an amazing piece of drivel. Are you trying to top your last post ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've read about the making of samurai swords. Do you have a genuine one ?
Me? Oh Lord no, way too expensive for a grad student. My main area of interest is (perforce) repro Euro swords. I think Japan has some very strict rules about exporting traditional nihonto. Some of the master smiths carry the title of "Living National Treasure." It's truly amazing how much goes into their construction. I think a lot of the 'voodoo' is due to misunderstanding of the fundamental differences in design and application of Japanese vs Euro style swords. Each were very well suited to their respective contexts (especially when considering armor developments, which is necessary to any understanding), plus there's a lot of the 'mysteries of the East' perceptions involved...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was wondering.
I've been told that European swords weren't so much cutting edges as bludgeons with something like a sharper side. That they were heavy and big b/c the style of fighting (and armor) were different from the Japanese style.
Any light you care to shed on that ?
(I realize you're probably busy - such is the life of a chemistry grad student. But any time you spare on this would be much appreciated.)
***************************************************************
Don't want to pull the thread too far off - but this is a great opportunity for me to learn.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t think violent criminals will go out of their way to get samurai swords. They switch to something else. If you make every violent weapon difficult to get, they’ll just go back to guns. But without question, you can’t make violent weapons difficult enough to get without making the government totalitarian to stop violent criminals.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Those kinds of swords are designed to be hung on your wall, not used in combat. Only an idiot takes them out and starts swinging them.
Originally posted by Eric:
I DO think those crappy sharpened stainless steel swords, of whatever style, should not be sold, because the very nature of stainless steel makes it very brittle, and at 'sword' lengths are very likely to shatter and injure bystanders if some idiot tries to cut something with it.
Incidentally, I have a genuine New Guinea tribal sword from, probably, New Guinea. I’ve had it appraised at the anthropology department of U of M to around five grand. Pretty good deal, considering my mother bought it for my when I was 16 at a garage store for $5.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Strange that it may seem, he's got a point.
Look, I ain't been sayin anything, but I been following some of this stuff lately...
Mall shooting, Utah, not so recent, gun free zone - stopped in progress by an off-duty cop who didn't obey that particular rule, prolly saved some lives too.
Mall shooting, recent, Omaha, gun free zone, total slaughter, mayhem only ended when shooter heard sirens and offed himself.
Church shooting one, Colorado, gun free zone, gunman acts with impunity, escapes long before police arrive.
Church shooting two, Colorado, armed citizen confronts and stops gunman.
You cannot make em un-exist, folks, and once again, the idea that words on paper are some kind of magical brick wall that will stop a criminal in their tracks is lunacy - they've already decided to kill some folk, and most of em are hell bent on suicide too, so exactly what concern do they have for breaking a few weapons laws and carrying into a gun-free zone ?
Nada.
It just makes easy victims, although I HAVE mentioned before that I don't have so much of an issue with a weapon free area if the venue has well trained, well armed security and enough of it for 100% coverage.
And given what I do, give me credit that I am trying to stop it at the very root by addressing how our society screws people up in the first place, and at the earliest possible points of intervention...
Till that gets done, have the decency to allow me some argument at hand beyond hiding and hoping while bodies hit the floor, my ratty II-A isn't gonna stop a headshot, or a rifle bullet you know.
As for that whole wild west argument, it's been so thoroughly debunked it's a wonder anyone keeps using it, Kennesaw proved that, and so did Flint cause when MI went right-to-carry the crime rate there dropped like a rock immediately, just as it has done anywhere, every time restrictions to firearm ownership have been reduced.
Law abiding citizens who carry are generally just that, law abiding, they jump through the hoops, learn what they're doing, and act with restraint and good sense to avoid catching the brunt of the absolute vilification of self-defense, which is the TRUTH of what the whole matter is about, really.
What you are asking me to do, is to believe that stupid sign is going to stop a complete nutter who's gone over the edge in his tracks - do YOU believe that ? do you think it's gonna stop him ?
Do you think the law is some kind of magic force that will prevent him from buying or stealing a firearm ? sure doesn't stop anyone from buying drugs, does it now ?
You are also asking me to assign motive and intent to an inanimate object, a tool - yes, sure, it's a tool designed for the express purpose of blowing holes in folk, but in the end it's a TOOL, an OBJECT, it's not some cursed artifact that turns a mother of three into some berserk rambo wannabe the instant she wraps her hand around the grip, which is what your wild-west anology requires that one believe in order for it to be effectively applied.
What this is really about, or at least I see it so, is the total vilification of self defense in general.. we see it in schools who suspend both parties involved in a fight, even if it was an outright attack, even if a bully who is already failing uses it to wreck the grades of an honor roll student for malicious purpose...
We see it when homeowners are prosecuted for defending their home and family, in the outlawing and banning of every possible means of effective defense on campuses and in large cities.
We see it every time a convenience store clerk takes the asinine advice "cooperate and don't resist" and then gets blown away to remove the witness.
And folks, I am sick of it, watching good people die because the concept of self-defense is more horrific to the status quo than the murder of innocents - that just makes me wanna fucking puke, ok ?
I pointed out back in December 2001 that even in spite of superior numbers, folks were so well trained not to resist or defend themselves, that a handful of ass
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was wondering.
I've been told that European swords weren't so much cutting edges as bludgeons with something like a sharper side. That they were heavy and big b/c the style of fighting (and armor) were different from the Japanese style.
Any light you care to shed on that ?
Argh! My eyes! Heresy!
Hehe, I know this is way off topic, but...Euro swords were as light or lighter than katana. A typical single hander weighed about 2-2.5 pounds, a longsword about 3 pounds. A more important parameter than weight was point of balance- earlier swords meant to deal with unarmored or mail-clad opponents were balanced further out (~4.5-5.5" from the hilt) for shearing cuts, while later models were pointier to penetrate the weak spots in plate armor and balanced closer (~3.5-4"), and the ease of handling is more influenced by this. My katana (~2.5 pounds) is a purely cut-oriented sword, with a point of balance about 7" out. Probably very effective against lacquer-armored samurai or unarmored ashigaru foot soldiers. It is true that Euros are not as sharp or as hard as kats, because the greater incidence of steel armor on a battle field (due to greater availability of raw iron ore in Europe) made a razor sharp edge very fragile and not very useful. But most opponents in a battle did not wear steel armor but thick cloth gambesons, which could potentially be cut through. I can attest that they are still quite sharp, though. Euro swords are also much more flexible.
In neither culture was the sword the primary weapon- spears were much more prolific. But neither style of sword was inherently superior- each was designed, through a long history of trial and fatal error, to maximize its utility in its own environment.
It's a fascinating topic, and the feature articles on
http://www.myarmoury.com/home.html
are a good beginning resource.
Quote:
(I realize you're probably busy - such is the life of a chemistry grad student. But any time you spare on this would be much appreciated.)
Hardly! It's 1030 pm here, and just me and some Admiral Nelson's spiced rum. My dissertation's finished, and I can graduate as soon as I find a job!
Plus my boss goes on vacation tomorrow...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Some people are big. Big and strong. I don't know if they are born that way, or if they devote the necessary free time to become that way.
I've heard that in prison, there is little to occupy one's time with other than exercise.
Some people aren't big. Some people aren't strong. Maybe they were born that way. Maybe they don't devote the necessary free time to become strong. Maybe they were strong, once. But maybe they are infirm or old, now.
Or maybe they are strong, too. But someone stronger always comes along, sooner or later.
Strong guys can do what they want to weaker guys. Morality stops some of them, but not all of them.
There's things that sometimes level the playing field. These things are weapons. The best weapons are the ones that don't rely on great physical aptitude.
Ninety pound weakling...
Two-hundred pound monster...
A snub-nosed revolver doesn't care who is holding it. It doesn't care who it's pointed at. It'll treat everyone equally, regardless of their physical might.
If you believe that most people are bad, then the revolver doesn't help you. It just lets 90 pound weaklings get away with the same stuff that only 200 pound monsters used to be able to do.
If you believe that most people are good, then the revolver is a great boon. It makes everyone equal, and if the majority of everyone is good, then the good power outnumbers the bad power.
But if most people are bad, then you'd think to be better off with lots of police. So many police, that you see one wherever you go. The police can have weapons, but no one else can. The police can protect you against the 200 pound monsters.
Lots and lots of police. Police everywhere. Police with weapons.
And most people are bad.
I hope the police aren't people...
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I’m not very familiar with Medieval European or Japanese weapons, but the Roman Gladius was a precision thrusting weapon designed to be stabbed between and around armor and generally used to inflict gut wounds. The gladius certainly wasn’t, as it was used, anything that could be described as a bludgeon. Prior to the adoption of the gladius, Roman swords were similar to Greek Xiphos used by Hoplites, which were less precision weapons that were often used for slashing and hacking. But as the Roman legion developed into a highly disciplined fighting force they shed the philosophy of heroic combat, unlike the Greeks, which was both an advantage and a disadvantage. The Roman legions relied much more on the sword then the Greeks. Greek Hoplites were essentially spear wielding troops, and the Romans did have Hoplites of a fashion, but they were rarely used for much more then defense. The Roman tactic was to engage the enemy in close combat by forcing the enemy to either throw themselves against Roman shields or to drive the Roman Phalanges against the enemy like a tank. The Romans fought in very tight formation and as long as they maintained that formation they were all but invincible. If that formation was broken they were in trouble. This is what made Hannibal such a thorn in the Roman side - he figured out that the Roman formation was the Achilles heel of the Roman legion. Using heavy cavalry, including war elephants, he was able to twice break the Roman legions and twice slaughter the entire Roman military. The Romans, like idiots, insisted upon driving their phalanges like a tank into Punic forces, but when your enemy has war elephants, this is likely going to be impossible. Scipio Africanus in the battle for Africa that ended the Punic Wars, figured this out and avoided breaking formation by having the line maneuver around War Elephants, and in doing so he was able to crush the Punic army.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because those select few have licences and have been vetted. We know they're trust worthy and responsible enough to own a deadly weapon like a sword.
Originally posted by freelancertex:
that's just..I'm sorry man.
ok, so what if one of the 'collectors of genuine samurai swords' is a complete psycho and uses one of his 'genuine samurai swords' to go to town on a group of unsuspecting innocent people, or does a thomas crown and uses it in a plot to steal something, getting rid of the guards on the way? it just seems stupid to ban swords EXCEPT for a select few.
I own swords, I have a martial arts licence, I know I can be trusted with it. I'm not so sure about some of the people I've seen going in to my local armourers asking to see the "Samurai Swords 'cause they're cool".
They're so cool you can go charging around your house with it swinging it around at your mates like an idiot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, they may be gun free zones, but they are surrounded by guns 'comparatively easy to get and own' zones, so it's hardly a good comparison to make for weapon control on a national level.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Strange that it may seem, he's got a point.
...
You cannot make em un-exist, folks, and once again, the idea that words on paper are some kind of magical brick wall that will stop a criminal in their tracks is lunacy - they've already decided to kill some folk, and most of em are hell bent on suicide too, so exactly what concern do they have for breaking a few weapons laws and carrying into a gun-free zone ?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I don’t think violent criminals will go out of their way to get samurai swords. They switch to something else. If you make every violent weapon difficult to get, they’ll just go back to guns. But without question, you can’t make violent weapons difficult enough to get without making the government totalitarian to stop violent criminals.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.
Right, because violent criminals are ever so mindful of obeying the law when they committ their violent crimes.
It was the use of these swords in the 1st place which led to this ban. Used how ? In violent crimes!
Might be they should focus on who is doing these crimes, and not how they're being committed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the two cases mentioned in the article happened 7 and 8 years ago ?
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since they're stopping the kind of people that commit these crimes (i.e. irresponsible owners and those without weapons licences) from having them, and not responsible people with said licences, surely they are doing exactly what you suggest and focusing on those 'doing these crimes'?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Might be they should focus on who is doing these crimes, and not how they're being committed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the two cases mentioned in the article happened 7 and 8 years ago ?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying that criminals wouldn’t use samurai swords regardless of their legality. I’m saying that they probably don’t want to sue samurai swords at all, because they’d rather be using guns. If you make samurai swords as difficult to get as a gun - they’re more likely to simply use guns.
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:Right, because violent criminals are ever so mindful of obeying the law when they committ their violent crimes.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I don’t think violent criminals will go out of their way to get samurai swords. They switch to something else. If you make every violent weapon difficult to get, they’ll just go back to guns. But without question, you can’t make violent weapons difficult enough to get without making the government totalitarian to stop violent criminals.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outlawing samurai swords and only outlaws will have samurai swords.
It was the use of these swords in the 1st place which led to this ban. Used how ? In violent crimes!
Might be they should focus on who is doing these crimes, and not how they're being committed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the two cases mentioned in the article happened 7 and 8 years ago ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I've often wondered whether machetes and similar gardening implements are legal in the British Isles.
You see, while 'wallhangers' (cheap, stainless-steel sword-like-objects) are not designed for rugged use, machetes and similar implements are.
[Please edify yourselves by watching the famous stainless-steel sword video here: http://theunreachablestar.com/sssword.mpg ]
I would much rather encounter an idiot wielding an SLO (sword-like-object) than a serious tool. After all, you can kill someone with anything, but a garden tool is durable enough to kill time and time again.
I wonder at what point you stop blaming the implement (in this case, decorative swords) and start blaming the people behind them. I note with interest that replica non-firing firearms have also been made illegal in the UK.
It would seem that only 'licensed, vetted, authorized' persons are allowed to have an inexpensive wall display of fake weapons in that country.
That means only rich people who can afford museum-quality authentics need apply.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lemme simplify that a bit...
Gee, prohibition worked so WELL with alcohol, and continues to perform so EFFECTIVELY on drugs, so why don't we apply it to weapons ?
Do we, mankind, never learn ANYTHING ?
See Sig Line for details.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Drugs aren't weapons, weapons aren't drugs. There's a few million points of deviation, that should be obvious.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Lemme simplify that a bit...
Gee, prohibition worked so WELL with alcohol, and continues to perform so EFFECTIVELY on drugs, so why don't we apply it to weapons ?
We expect people to have licences to operate cars, why not Weapons?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have a problem with that, Cit
As long as the testing process is based on training, discipline, responsibility and competence.
Rather than based on how intensively you'll prostrate yourself to the established order on command.
Two VERY different things.
If you know how to clean, reload and operate it properly, including clearing first and second order malfunctions...
Can make proper Fire/No-Fire decisions when presented with them, and show a responsible and safe handling and demeanor...
And can actually hit your target at the proper engagement ranges for the weapon often enough for effective use...
Then by all means,
carry the weapon of your choice!
Competence-based testing and licensing as a condition of sale by the manufacturer or dealer isn't a bad idea for ANY powerful, dangerous tool... although I am having a few chuckles over the mental images of proving to Lowes while purchasing a cordless power drill, that I can swap the battery, chuck a bit, and know the difference between a masonry bit and an auger bit.
As for swords - you wanna hang it on your wall, fine... but if you wanna CARRY it, the same philosophy applies, doesn't it ?
I got no issue with licensing, I got an issue with BANNING - taking my sole effective defense (remember, i'm stuck in a wheelchair for like, a month now..) from ME cause YOU are scared, that's just fucking stupid.
Freedom ain't safe, at times it can be kinda scary, and if folks are more afraid of freedom than they are a police state, why don't they move to one then* ?
-Frem
PS* - Yes, that last comment is extremely tongue in cheek, as a deliberate smack on the same logic in the other direction.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But isn't this what it's all about? Surely the only people who have shown themselves competent and responcible enough to own a sword are martial arts students who have passed that grade? I know I'm not allowed to buy a Tan Tow until I've passed the course, and I wasn't allowed to buy a Staff until I'd passed that course either. You also don't get to take the course, until the master decides your good enough and responcible enough to do so.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for swords - you wanna hang it on your wall, fine... but if you wanna CARRY it, the same philosophy applies, doesn't it ?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:*under her breath* they thought hannibal lecter was trustworthy - I KNOW! FICTION, BUT STILL. you never know, ya know?
Originally posted by Citizen: Because those select few have licences and have been vetted. We know they're trust worthy and responsible enough to own a deadly weapon like a sword.
I own swords, I have a martial arts licence, I know I can be trusted with it. I'm not so sure about some of the people I've seen going in to my local armourers asking to see the "Samurai Swords 'cause they're cool".
They're so cool you can go charging around your house with it swinging it around at your mates like an idiot.
Those people are just idiots who want something cool for the sake of having something cool. ppl with martial arts licenses are different. they're not stupid about weapons :-P
screaming like an idiot huh? lol XD silly.
__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."
A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've aways thought that a sword would make an excellent home defense weapon. You're much less likely to kill an innocent bystander with a sword. Plus, I think they have a better deterrent effect than a gun. In the US you see stories in the newspaper all the time with titles like "Burglar Shot by Homeowner". Don't you think a headline like " Burgler Beheaded by Homeowner" would get a little more notice in the criminal community. I mean for tens of thousands of years a severed head on a stick has been the universal sign for "NO TRESPASSING".
Any of you sword experts have any recommendations on a good "home defense" sword. On the other hand, that would be just one more thing they will have to pry from "my cold dead hand".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a Samuri sword; I use it to cut my hedges- it takes 'em down in one.
The only way you'll get it from me is to pry it from my cold, dead hand.
M-effer!
First blood Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your solution to the VERY occasional misjudgement of trustworthiness is, perhaps, allowing people we know aren't trustworthy to have weapons too? Please tell me if I misunderstand your apparent sarcasm, but that seems like it would be worse, not better.
Originally posted by freelancertex:
*under her breath* they thought hannibal lecter was trustworthy - I KNOW! FICTION, BUT STILL. you never know, ya know?
Quote:Yes they are. As for the last part it comes from personal experience of how people who haven't earned a weapon react when they get one.
Those people are just idiots who want something cool for the sake of having something cool. ppl with martial arts licenses are different. they're not stupid about weapons :-P
screaming like an idiot huh? lol XD silly.
You're comparing someone who has studied HARD for something, and have had the seriousness of it's responsibility impressed upon them at every turn, to someone who really really wants a sword.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A machete is a good close-to-mid-ranger, easy to wield, and won't break the lamps by mistake.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Any of you sword experts have any recommendations on a good "home defense" sword.
Samuri is my choice though...I was gonna get a second, but like it's been said, there can be only one.
Connorisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The best response to a home invader tends to be giving them a route of escape. Home defence weapons are often turned on the home owner. No one should have a sword, or any other weapon, with the idea to actually use it.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I've aways thought that a sword would make an excellent home defense weapon. You're much less likely to kill an innocent bystander with a sword. Plus, I think they have a better deterrent effect than a gun. In the US you see stories in the newspaper all the time with titles like "Burglar Shot by Homeowner". Don't you think a headline like " Bugler Beheaded by Homeowner" would get a little more notice in the criminal community. I mean for tens of thousands of years a severed head on a stick has been the universal sign for "NO TRESPASSING".
Any of you sword experts have any recommendations on a good "home defense" sword. On the other hand, that would be just one more thing they will have to pry from "my cold dead hand".
No sword would make a good home defence weapon, they're difficult to use, require constant practice, and need more skill than a gun to use effectively. Anyone prepared to learn how to wield a bladed weapon well enough to be effective with it, won't be doing it merely to defend their home.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
[BThe best response to a home invader tends to be giving them a route of escape. Home defence weapons are often turned on the home owner. No one should have a sword, or any other weapon, with the idea to actually use it.
No sword would make a good home defence weapon, they're difficult to use, require constant practice, and need more skill than a gun to use effectively. Anyone prepared to learn how to wield a bladed weapon well enough to be effective with it, won't be doing it merely to defend their home.
This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No better way to get someone looking for an escape route than by being there and telling them the police are on their way. They don't want to get caught, but you come out with a sword screaming and hollering, you're going to elicit a flight or fight response that could as easily turn to fight, especially in a 'crack head'. If your knowledge of using your weapon amounts to 'swinging it', the likelihood is that you're going to come off worse, no, not any 'dumb ass' can swing a sword with some effectiveness. A sword is a skilled weapon, you swing it like 'any dumbass', all you'll end up doing is getting stabbed to death while you try to pull your broad sword out of the banister post.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Never bring a sword to a gun fight. My concern with swords is that, even if you are a master swordsmen, if the intruder pulls out a gun, you’re screwed. Frankly, I don’t buy the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone” routine either, but loosing your head won’t help you any better. Avoiding confrontation by providing the intruder an escape route is the best solution all around, but that does not mean providing a weak and easy target. Instead arm yourself and maintain a concealed defensive position, while informing the intruder that you are armed and that you have called the police (whether you have or not.)
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Home defence weapons are often turned on the home owner."
Pure fiction, impressed into the public consciousness in the same fashion as Iraq being directly responsible for 9-11, and every bit as much lacking factual basis for the claim.
Starting from four to eight feet away, and you believe a typical criminal when he realizes his target is armed, is going to try to close and disarm them ? and stands ANY REAL CHANCE of doing it ?
Or worse, starting from 16-20 feet away, against a homeowner with a firearm, is going to attempt to close for a disarm, and COULD PULL THAT OFF ?
Whatever you're smoking, pass left, Bogart, I could use it about now...
The best home defense weapon IMOP, is a shotgun loaded with 2-3/4" single O buckshot, good balance between coverage and lethality, and also between over penetration and stopping power.
One thing you're right about is the escape route, you don't wanna FIGHT a home intruder, even if you win you'll prolly be charged, sued, face some scumwad like Hero in court with the deck pre-stacked against you and even if you pull a miracle and preserve your freedom, you'll lose the firearm for sure and be out a minumum of $30,000.00 USD in legal defense fees.
Oh, and did I mention needing a VERY expensive kit to clean up blood and bodily fluids, replacing carpet, drywall, panelling.. and the like ?
Trust me, you don't wanna fight em if you don't have to.
You want them to LEAVE, NOW.
Just that, to GO AWAY - ain't your job nor responsibility to catch, arrest or incarcerate em, leave it to the cops, who do such a great job that you don't NEED a weapon, right ?
*SNARK*
Get yourself a Remington 870 express with 7 round mag and a surefire light.
Someone starts coming through the door, you beam them with that light and shout, LEAVE NOW, I AM ARMED!
95% of the time, they'll leave, and double-damned quick, too.
If they don't, start firing, and they'll either be leaving via nike express, or feet first, but they'll be leaving without robbing/raping/assaulting you, that's for sure.
The hardest one to handle is when they surrender!
(about 0.5% of the time, this does happen)
In that case you get on the horn to the police and make VERY sure the officers en route know the situation and which one is homeowner and perp.
Then when they arrive put the gun down quickly and brace yourself to be thrown into the floor, stomped on, kneed in the back of the neck and cuffed.. "for your own safety" as a slap in the face for having the temerity to defend yourself.
Usually once they get it sorted, they'll uncuff you, and if yer really lucky and the lords are feeling merciful, you MIGHT even get your weapon back.
One thing you DON'T do is discuss it with em, cause they'll be looking for something, anything, to charge you with, because you're a vile self-defender and a threat to their extortion racket - you simply state that you were in fear for your life and defended yourself, then demand your lawyer and shut the hell up.
I really wouldn't reccommend a sword for home defense - but in the rare case when your main entrance is a confined hallway for several feet, one might suggest a boar spear or footmans pike.
(Yes, I am kidding)
Seriously, get a Remington 870, cheap, effective home defense, great for clay pidgeon, skeet, trap shooting, even hunting just about anything.
And if you wanna, you can pretty it up however you like.. I know some chick with a PINK one, glarg.. or you could go all "tactical" and hang endless amounts of "cool looking" crap on it like some riced-out CRX owned by someone with lots of money and no taste...
Or just leave it standard-issue, it's pretty nice as it is.
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/shotguns/model_870/model_87
0_express_synthetic_7-round.asp
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Never bring a sword to a gun fight. My concern with swords is that, even if you are a master swordsmen, if the intruder pulls out a gun, you’re screwed. Frankly, I don’t buy the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone” routine either, but loosing your head won’t help you any better. Avoiding confrontation by providing the intruder an escape route is the best solution all around, but that does not mean providing a weak and easy target. Instead arm yourself and maintain a concealed defensive position, while informing the intruder that you are armed and that you have called the police (whether you have or not.)
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This might be true if the intruder is a Ninja crack head but around here they're more likely to be a Crack Head, crack head. Any dumb ass can swing a sword with some effectiveness and those that can't shouldn't. No better way to get an intruder looking for a "route of escape" than to start swinging a sword like a mad man.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Alrighty then, you guys have convinced me. I 'll just stick with the Kimber 1911 until I get all practiced up on my sword fighting skills. As far as the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone”. In Florida we have the "Castle Doctrine" which means I don't have to provide an avenue of escape for the scumbag. I can shoot him in the back while he's trying to escape and be legally justified.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not sure that it makes you a very good person to shoot someone in the back, but I also don’t think that the responsibility should be on the homeowner. If you invade someone’s house with the intent to commit a crime, I don‘t think you deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Alrighty then, you guys have convinced me. I 'll just stick with the Kimber 1911 until I get all practiced up on my sword fighting skills. As far as the “be a pussy and he’ll leave you alone”. In Florida we have the "Castle Doctrine" which means I don't have to provide an avenue of escape for the scumbag. I can shoot him in the back while he's trying to escape and be legally justified.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:yes, totally misunderstood my sarcasm.
Originally posted by Citizen: Your solution to the VERY occasional misjudgement of trustworthiness is, perhaps, allowing people we know aren't trustworthy to have weapons too? Please tell me if I misunderstand your apparent sarcasm, but that seems like it would be worse, not better.
Chrisisall: lol XD u make me laugh.
__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."
A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Erm, no it isn't. I'd like to point out your own claim isn't exactly brimming over with objective facts, more conjecture.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pure fiction, impressed into the public consciousness in the same fashion as Iraq being directly responsible for 9-11, and every bit as much lacking factual basis for the claim.
Most people would disarm (like for instance getting that sword stuck in a wall), someone breaking into your home is most likely used to fighting, where as your average home owner isn't. Self-defence experts try to leave without a fight, or else wise remove themselves for danger, fighting only when they're back is to the wall. Have a go hero's charge in because it's 'their house'.
Next day they're loved ones are identifying them in the morgue.
Those people are idiots, there's a difference between self-defence and stupidity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then maybe you could make yourself clear?
Originally posted by freelancertex:
yes, totally misunderstood my sarcasm
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, and did I mention needing a VERY expensive kit to clean up blood and bodily fluids, replacing carpet, drywall, panelling.. and the like ?
Best reason I've heard yet not to shoot them.
My primary concern is that the intruder not escape to continue on his crime spree. A person that would break into another's home is the lowest form of scum and can't be allowed to run free. Next house he breaks into he might kill a defenseless old lady. The reason there is so many unsolved murders is because they don't leave witnesses when they encounter unarmed residents and run away when confronted with deadly force.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I'd like to point out your own claim isn't exactly brimming over with objective facts, more conjecture."
Kellermann, Arthur, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.
http://guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
National case-control study of homicide offending and gun ownership.
Gary Kleck, Michael Hogan. Social Problems. May 1999 v46 i2 p275(1).
COPYRIGHT 1999 University of California Press.
For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical.
http://guncite.com/Kleck-Hogan.html
I figured it'd be common sense, crooks want easy targets, and almost without fail, flee the moment a weapon comes into play on the side of the victim, but you wanted some stats, there ya go.
One thing I find appalling at some of the other studies is considering a shot-dead perp on a homeowners doorstep a "victim of gun violence" to bump the the numbers and float the fear/hysteria factor... same way the media does with "terrorism" and for much the same reasons.
*shrug* I just ain't afraid, ain't gonna be, no point in it... live life, act with discretion and hope that you don't wind up in a 'situation'.
And if you do, then you deal with it as best you can with the correct tools - no one PLANS on getting a flat, but your car has a spare, doesn't it ?
Just in case.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I am not interested in leaving my safety in the hands of a person who is breaking into my house. If I lock myself in my bedroom and yell that the cops are coming, he may leave. Or he may not. He may break down the door. He may accost other members of my family who aren’t necessarily in the room with me. He may do whatever he likes, because I haven’t limited his options one iota.
As for the police, the saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.”
Citizen is of the opinion that criminals generally don’t want to get caught, and I agree. But criminals are generally aware of the response time of police officers. They typically understand that even when police are contacted, it will take them several minutes to respond. Otherwise, their profession would carry too much danger to be profitable. If officers instantly materialized in response to someone calling the police, criminals would be gainfully employed in other professions.
Let us presume that an officer can arrive on the scene within 7 minutes of a phone call to the police. This would be considered a VERY good response time in most areas, and the best that you can expect unless an officer just happens to be driving by when the call comes in.
Seven minutes is a very long time. It may not seem that way when you’ve got seven minutes to get to work, but it is an eternity when someone is attacking you. Seven minutes is more than enough time to murder my entire family, kill my dogs, and make off with my cash, credit cards, and an electronic appliance of your choosing. Heck, take the microwave. You can actually put your loot inside the microwave. That way you only need to carry one object.
But perhaps a police officer really IS driving by. That could possibly be even worse. If the criminal does not immediately surrender or make a run for it, he may choose to take a hostage. Hostage situations are generally dangerous affairs, and the outcome can be unpredictable.
Now, keep in mind that the criminal may thank me for my cooperation and leave calmly with my goodies. He may run when he hears that the ominous police force is coming. But he doesn’t have to. He has many options available to him, and several of the options are unsavory.
As an alternative, I may confront the criminal with a weapon in my hand. Preferably a firearm.
The criminal has three choices. He can kill me. He can run. He can surrender.
I doubt he will surrender. As Citizen pointed out, they don’t like to go to jail.
He may try to kill me. This is a real possibility. However, even criminals that like to kill people usually do NOT like to FIGHT people for the kill. They didn’t break into my house looking for a fight. They broke into my house looking for loot and/or fun. In attempting to kill me, the criminal has some chance of failure. The penalty for failure is probably death.
The criminal may try to run. This is the most likely scenario for a criminal who meets unexpected resistance. They leave.
Defending my home and my family with a weapon carries a degree of risk, but so does NOT defending my home and my family with a weapon. Not knowing the intention of the criminal invading my home, it is difficult to accurately assess the comparative risks.
However, limiting the criminal’s options is very attractive to me. When you present a weapon to an intruder, his scope of possibilities retreats from many possible ‘win’ scenarios to very few ‘win’ scenarios, and the ‘lose’ scenarios begin to look very severe.
I advocate home defense. I do not expect everyone to advocate home defense. Each person must weigh the pros and cons for themselves.
I hope each person in the U.S. continues to have the right to decide for themselves.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh god, I love that.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And most people are bad.
I hope the police aren't people...
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:kinda hard to do over a computer unless you type *sarcasm* somewhere in your message. that just makes it not as much fun :-P lol
Originally posted by Citizen: Then maybe you could make yourself clear?
unless I'm misunderstanding you in what your meaning is by that statement.
__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."
A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I got that it was sarcasm. I'm asking you to tell me what point you were trying to make in plain English.
Originally posted by freelancertex:
kinda hard to do over a computer unless you type *sarcasm* somewhere in your message. that just makes it not as much fun :-P lol
unless I'm misunderstanding you in what your meaning is by that statement.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure, if you're ever-present and they don't get your weapons first. The funny thing about people breaking into your house is that they tend to do it when there isn't someone waiting behind the front door with the American Armies yearly deficit in artilary. I was more talking blunt force objects, which make up the bulk of weapons used, rather than guns though.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I figured it'd be common sense, crooks want easy targets, and almost without fail, flee the moment a weapon comes into play on the side of the victim, but you wanted some stats, there ya go.
Thanks for the links though, of all people here I suspect you can understand that I don't merely want to take your say so at face value
. I'm at work at the moment so a proper responce will have to wait awhile.Quote:Kind of like the hysteria of suggesting all home invaders are mad men and out to kill you, your family and rape your dog, because they don't want to leave witnesses? Seems like a cousin of some sort of slippery slope that.
One thing I find appalling at some of the other studies is considering a shot-dead perp on a homeowners doorstep a "victim of gun violence" to bump the the numbers and float the fear/hysteria factor... same way the media does with "terrorism" and for much the same reasons.
Quote:Sounds like a lot of people are planning to make their home into the OK Coral, here at least.
And if you do, then you deal with it as best you can with the correct tools - no one PLANS on getting a flat, but your car has a spare, doesn't it ?
Quote:Because in an emotionally charged situation, someone breaking into your house will think rationally and decide to commit mass murder because the police probably won’t arrive for a few minutes. Or more likely they leave immediately so they can get maximum distance between them and the scene, not stagger out a few moments before the police arrive with a blood stained microwave, so that they’re only few houses down when the carnage is discovered.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
As for the police, the saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.”
Citizen is of the opinion that criminals generally don’t want to get caught, and I agree. But criminals are generally aware of the response time of police officers. They typically understand that even when police are contacted, it will take them several minutes to respond. Otherwise, their profession would carry too much danger to be profitable. If officers instantly materialized in response to someone calling the police, criminals would be gainfully employed in other professions.
Let us presume that an officer can arrive on the scene within 7 minutes of a phone call to the police. This would be considered a VERY good response time in most areas, and the best that you can expect unless an officer just happens to be driving by when the call comes in.
Quote:Yeah, seven minutes that they can use to get away from possible capture for a lesser crime, as opposed to thirty seconds to get away from imminent capture for mass murder, you do the math.
Seven minutes is a very long time. It may not seem that way when you’ve got seven minutes to get to work, but it is an eternity when someone is attacking you. Seven minutes is more than enough time to murder my entire family, kill my dogs, and make off with my cash, credit cards, and an electronic appliance of your choosing. Heck, take the microwave. You can actually put your loot inside the microwave. That way you only need to carry one object.
Quote:Because hostage situations are just so exceedingly common…
But perhaps a police officer really IS driving by. That could possibly be even worse. If the criminal does not immediately surrender or make a run for it, he may choose to take a hostage. Hostage situations are generally dangerous affairs, and the outcome can be unpredictable.
Quote:
Now, keep in mind that the criminal may thank me for my cooperatioNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit, believe me, if someones breakin through my door at 3am in the morning, I've no intent to ask them why - I can HOPE that it's some drunk who has mistaken the place for his house and can't find his keys, but till otherwise imma assume the putative intruder is hostile, and whatever his intent is, I don't really care - I just want him to go away.
And again with the whole wild west remarks, previously totally debunked.
The LAST thing I want is to bust a cap on someone in my doorway, and have to deal with the police, the mess, and the hassle that'd go with it, and that goes for most folk as well.
Having to clean some jerkwads brains off the back of my front door ain't my idea of a good time, especially if it was a junkie who might be HIV-pos or carryin Hepatitis or whatnot, and yes I have cleaned up after a shooting before, it's about as horrific a thing as you can imagine, not only because of the mess, but because the appalling waste of a human life is rammed home to you over and over during every second of it.
That bein said, if I truly feel it's him or me, it ain't gonna be me.
Avg police response in this area can range from 10 minutes to 45+, and that gets worse as you get closer to the city, and a freaked out criminal is likely to do anything, thankfully they usually run, but there is the chance of running up against a true sociopath, which must be accounted for.
Your argument also makes no sense at the end, if a burglar or home invader will flee from your presence, they will CERTAINLY flee from your ARMED presence, not immediately close for a fight and attempt to disarm you - what kind of thought process results in that conclusion ?
And the ineffectiveness of a lesser weapon you cite, to my eyes is all the more reason to have a firearm handy- there's just no sense in handing a criminal a gimme, is there ?
http://www.corneredcat.com/
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just bein' a smart ass is all. I do that sometimes. sry. :\
__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."
A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"if a burglar or home invader will flee from your presence, they will CERTAINLY flee from your ARMED presence, not immediately close for a fight and attempt to disarm you - what kind of thought process results in that conclusion ?"
Hello,
I agree. If a criminal would run simply because I am home, he will certainly run if I am home and armed.
Otherwise, he's exactly the kind of dangerous person who I WANT to confront with a firearm.
Any bloke who will stand in my house and have a firefight with me is EXACTLY the kind of bloke that I don't want to give 7 minutes of time to enjoy my family, my dogs, and my microwave.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really, since I was talking about the notions mentioned in this thread. Perhaps you should read some of the other posts? Kirkules seems to be talking about killing and mutilating as the first option, Anthony seems to be suggesting shooting first and asking questions later, and you seem to be saying brandishing weapons on the first instance, on the highly unlikely possibility that they may be a psycho, is a good idea. Seems that last one is going to provoke a situation more than anything. Not really debunked at all, as far as I can see.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And again with the whole wild west remarks, previously totally debunked.
Quote:What results in that conclusion? Psychology, take a look at a cornered animal; you remove the escape route and threaten them, people or animals will attack in anyway they can. Brandishing weapons doesn't defuse a situation, what kind of thought process leads to that conclusion?
Your argument also makes no sense at the end, if a burglar or home invader will flee from your presence, they will CERTAINLY flee from your ARMED presence, not immediately close for a fight and attempt to disarm you - what kind of thought process results in that conclusion ?
I get your not advocating opening up the moment you can, I have been reading your posts, though I’m beginning to wonder if the same courtesy is being extended to me, or maybe I’m not making myself clear?
You’re talking about what goes through your mind (him or me, so on and so forth) but then don’t extend that to him. If you’re there with a weapon, he’s going to be thinking the same thing you would in the same situation, if I run he might shoot me. He’s being physically threatened, rather than being threatened with possible capture. If you don’t want to get caught, capture is going to provoke you to run, but if you’re being openly threatened, it can and often does change the available options. People do insanely irrational things in those circumstances, like pulling their own weapons or trying to get yours.
EDITED for clarity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You'd also be a bloke having a fire fight in your house.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Any bloke who will stand in my house and have a firefight with me is EXACTLY the kind of bloke that I don't want to give 7 minutes of time to enjoy my family, my dogs, and my microwave.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Realistically, I'm mostly with Citizen here.
But just in case, it might be good to yell something like:
"Dude, you might wanna just leave now, unless ya think you can out-shoot me...do you feel lucky..PUNK?"
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Citizen, I don't think the situations are truly analagous.
In the case of a home intruder, I am the cornered animal. The home invader can always retreat the way he came. I'm not advocating cornering the man in a closet in my home. I'm advocating his retreat with more than words.
Walk into a bear cave and find a bear. Tell me if your instincts are the same as the bear's. Either you didn't want to find a bear, and so you run... or you did want to find the bear, and so you fight.
Either way, that bear needs to be scary and ready to tear you up.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I advocate random wild firing into a pillow to let them know you're prepared to kill 'em. Kind of like a bear growling....
GrrrChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Somebody breaks into your home when you're there....you don't know what they're gonna do : rob, rape, torture, kidnap? You don't need to ask any questions; just blow them away immediately, unless you're willing to risk the lives of your family on a hunch that they might not hurt you. That's too big a risk to take.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Somebody breaks into your home when you're there....you don't know what they're gonna do : rob, rape, torture, kidnap? You don't need to ask any questions; just blow them away immediately, unless you're willing to risk the lives of your family on a hunch that they might not hurt you. That's too big a risk to take.
*BOOM BOOM BOOM*
GEEZE!!! Sorry Grandma!!! You should have turned on the lights!!!
Damn...the bulb's out....
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we need to clarify things otherwise we are going to talk at cross purposes forever. It seems to me that Anthony and Citizen are talking about two different classes of crime.
Anthony seems to be talking about the "In Cold Blood" style home invasion robbery where the perps enter the premises not only expecting to meet the owner but reliant on it (perhaps to force the owner to open a safe or with rape in mind.)
Citizen is talking about straight burglary where the perp's principle goal is to steal stuff and evade capture.
These are two different classes of crime with completely different types of criminals. As Cit suggests a sneak thief is more likely to run that fight if given a way out, where as the kind of guy planning a home invasion is probably going in intent on using force.
That established what you do in that situation has a lot to do with your perception of risk.
Fatal home invasion robbery's and rapes do happen even in the UK (though they are very rare.) I've been out of the UK for a while but I remember the Stephanie Slater case and one in Derbyshire where a family was murdered. There have been a number of family abductions and none fatal home invasion robbery's too.
However, at least in the UK the sneak thief is the more likely criminal to enter your home. In that situation the potential risks of a weapon being in the house (injury of owner/family, family homocide or unintended escallation) may outweigh the self defence benefits.
So how likely are home invasions resulting in actual bodily harm/rape/abduction or murder? There's no statistics but I'm willing to bet that they are not that common based on the fact that such cases get national media attention in the US (common crimes rarely get national cover.)
So is it reasonable to arm yourself against that unlikely event? Does the potential risk outweigh the actual risks associated with having a weapon in the house? I think that's a personal value judgement call. I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen in the unlikely event that we get a small fire. Hopefully I will never have to use it but I made the judgement that however unlikely the event, the risk was enough to justify the costs. It's that kind of an assessment.
Actually that is an interesting question.
How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In Diamonds Are Forever, Bond made quite good use of one....
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen
Just sayin' Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"you seem to be saying brandishing weapons on the first instance, on the highly unlikely possibility that they may be a psycho, is a good idea."
Someone breakin down your door at 3am in the morning?
Damn RIGHT it's a good idea!
You'd rather I hide under the bed and hope they go away ?
We're not talkin monsters in the closet now, but putative assailants who might be armed felons with intent.
And other than Jong, ain't not a one advocating immediate firing, you are mentally tripping over your own preconceptions here.
And how the hell is someone breaking into a home, with a CLEAR AND READY route of retreat a "cornered animal" ?
All they gotta do, is turn around and LEAVE, which is what I want em to do, hell that's the first thing out of my mouth, innit now ?
"People do insanely irrational things in those circumstances"
Once again destroying your own argument, on one hand saying their behavior is predictable, and then admitting it is not.
No, I DO NOT know what's going through his head, or what his plans are, and frankly, I don't give a shit, my entire goal is changing his plan into LEAVING NOW.
And if he does not, I am prepared for that eventuality too, although I'll be a lot less pleased with it, obviously.
That's what the light, and the shouted warning are FOR, to convince them to leave immediately - with appropriate, and enough force, in ready just in case that isn't what they do.
I ain't his damn therapist, ain't his damn buddy, and SURE as hell don't intend to be his victim, and as such I am under no obligation to have any mercy or leniency towards someone crossing the threshold of my dwelling unwanted in a manner that speaks of ill intent.
They get four words, cause when my arse is in the line I don't screw around, that's the only communication they get, and I ain't rackin the slide cause there's one up the pipe already.
At which point they got every possible reason to leave, and no reason for staying, but like you yourself stated, one cannot predict their behavior.
One can damn sure prepare for it, however.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?"
Full coverage, several smoke alarms, tested on a regular schedule with good batteries in them, and a fire extinguisher (a real one, of decent size) in the kitchen, workshop and garage, as well as a respectable first aid kit in the bathroom.
The car has a fire extinguisher, first aid kit and fully loaded breakdown kit including some MREs and bottled water in case of breakdown in midwinter in the middle of nowhere.
No one can plan for every eventuality, but those prepared for the eventualities they ARE aware of, are more often than not the ones left around to bury the less fortunate.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Somebody breaks into your home when you're there....you don't know what they're gonna do : rob, rape, torture, kidnap? You don't need to ask any questions; just blow them away immediately, unless you're willing to risk the lives of your family on a hunch that they might not hurt you. That's too big a risk to take.
*BOOM BOOM BOOM*
GEEZE!!! Sorry Grandma!!! You should have turned on the lights!!!
Damn...the bulb's out....
Once again Chris your brilliance shines through! I never would have even dreamed of that possible scenario! Thank God you're always here to help us see the errors of our ways...whew!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
sorry ...double post ...server very slow today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are the man Frem. I have smoke detectors, sprinklers and a decent extinguisher in the kitchen. I have one in my car aw well as a medkit, tools etc. We dont drive outside of Metro but I admit if we went cross country I'd add those meals too (used to carry self heating cans of stew back in the day..)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a backpack with sneakers, a poncho, some energy bars and water, a flashlight, and work gloves just in case I have to WALK home after an earthquake and start digging somebody out.
But that's where my preparedness ends!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually you've destroyed your argument, by not reading mine. I was saying people presented with an armed assailant do irrational things, and their more predictable if you just present an escape route.
Once again destroying your own argument, on one hand saying their behavior is predictable, and then admitting it is not.
You can be fairly sure that if you're there they are going to leave, they don't want to get caught, and that's the only major factor in their decision making. If you're openly armed and brandishing your weapon, the over ridding factor becomes not getting shot, which is a whole different motivator to not getting caught, and if they decide you're going to gun them down regardless, why wouldn't they attack you?
The only thing destroyed here is any lingering belief I may have had that you're actually interested in anything I have to say on the subject. Please read what I write in future.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll be here all week.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Once again Chris your brilliance shines through! I never would have even dreamed of that possible scenario! Thank God you're always here to help us see the errors of our ways...whew!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?"
Full coverage, several smoke alarms, tested on a regular schedule with good batteries in them, and a fire extinguisher (a real one, of decent size) in the kitchen, workshop and garage, as well as a respectable first aid kit in the bathroom.
The car has a fire extinguisher, first aid kit and fully loaded breakdown kit including some MREs and bottled water in case of breakdown in midwinter in the middle of nowhere.
No one can plan for every eventuality, but those prepared for the eventualities they ARE aware of, are more often than not the ones left around to bury the less fortunate.
-F
All of the above plus gas masks and NBC suits for both cars and home. I've had friends tell me I'm crazy for having gas masks, then a week later ask me were I bought them. I'm sure there are people in Bhopal, India that wouldn't think I'm crazy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In 2000 we took a bunch of exchange students to the top of the World Trade center, and I said to my wife in all seriousness, that I'd never work in a skyscraper without a parachute hanging on my wall.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'm sure there are people in Bhopal, India that wouldn't think I'm crazy.
If only...Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have several smoke alarms and three fire extinguishers. I also have a home security system, a Glock 22 and two shotguns. I’m not at risk for tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes or flood, but if I were I would have contingency plans for those too. I don’t expect my house to catch fire, and I don’t expect someone to invade my house and try to kill me or my family, but while both events may be unlikely, they only have to happen once, and if you’re not prepared, it’s very possible that’s it for you.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So is it reasonable to arm yourself against that unlikely event? Does the potential risk outweigh the actual risks associated with having a weapon in the house? I think that's a personal value judgement call. I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen in the unlikely event that we get a small fire. Hopefully I will never have to use it but I made the judgement that however unlikely the event, the risk was enough to justify the costs. It's that kind of an assessment.
Actually that is an interesting question.
How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?
I even have a plan for when the New Madrid Fault blows, but in all honesty, I expect that there’s no way to prepare for that one.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I can see we here are at the usual impasse between people who
(1) think that confronting an intruder with a weapon is the best way to defend your self/family and
(2) think that confronting an intruder with a weapon is the best way to provoke the intruder into hurting you.
I personally have nothing against the reasoning of group #2 as long as they don’t wish to interfere with the actions of group #1.
Everyone feel free to protect your homes, families, and lives to the best of your ability and capacity for reason. I hope we’re all here to old age and senility with neither philosophy being tested.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it is entirely appropriate to use a weapon or other means to protect your home; but you must be prepared that in so doing you may provoke the intruder into attempting to hurt you. Of course, depending on the intruder, doing nothing or acting intimidated may provoke the intruder into attacking you.
Really, it's best just to not have intruders. I like my dog. He's big and noisy. Ok, I like him except when I'm trying to sleep; I like to think he's doing some good, though.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I often do have a lot of problems with the reasoning of group #2, usually because there’s generally no reasoning at all. It’s just taken as dogma that if you use a gun to protect yourself or your family it’s somehow always going to completely go awry as if there is some sort of supernatural power associated with a gun that will magically influence fate against you. I have no problem with cautionary arguments about the need for training and avoiding hot-headed behavior or giving the intruder an exit and generally avoiding conflict. These are all excellent points, but they are completely independent of the gun itself. Whether there are guns being used in the encounter or not, it always a good idea to be trained in how to deal with the encounter and always a good idea to avoid acting impetuously or allowing fear to control your actions. But in the end, I have never heard a convincing argument, and not very many reasonable arguments, that you will not generally be better able to protect yourself if you have a gun, then if you do not.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I personally have nothing against the reasoning of group #2 as long as they don’t wish to interfere with the actions of group #1.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I read it, just ain't making any SENSE out of it.
You are telling me, that a home invading perp who would run from an unarmed homeowner, would then banzai charge an ARMED homeowner TELLING THEM TO LEAVE ?
Look, I've been polite, fuck it - that's bullshit and you know it.
I class it in the same fantasy world as believing gun-free zone signs stop armed felons like a magic wall.
My way of lookin at it, the primary person who'd want me unarmed in that situation is the perp, and anyone siding with em on that is just aiding and abetting - crass that it may be, that *IS* how I view the situation, clear ?
Done discussin it with you at this point, we obviously ain't comin to no agreement, and there's no common ground left in reality to bother with.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html
Country
% Households With Guns
firearm deaths/100,000
--------------------- ------- -----------------
United States
39
14.05
Canada
29.1
4.08
Finland
23.2
6.77
New Zealand
22.3
2.97
Australia
19.4
3.05
Sweden
15.1
2.31
Spain
13.1
1.01
Germany
8.9
1.47
England/Wales
4.7
0.57
And this doesn't even begin to address the hoops one has to go through to get a gun in those other countries.
Any questions ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My own feeling on home gun ownership? I don't own a gun, but that's my choice. If I lived in a more rural area, I just might. Someone who enters my home without permission, and/or with malice aforethought, should, in my opinion, be prepared to be met with extreme rudeness.
As to the logic of outlawing affordable swords because they've been used in criminal acts: They'd better outlaw raw potatoes and double-edged razor blades next, because the nastiest, cheapest weapon I've ever seen was constructed of one of the former and three of the latter. Luckily I wasn't carrying enough cash to make fighting for it worth the effort. I do miss that Zippo, though.
Honestly, even if you manage to control access to sharp, pointy things, they're easy enough to make in any basement hobby shop. And if the perfidious masses can't find 'em, they'll just downgrade to bicycle chains, or blunt instruments.
As for not bringing a sword to a gun fight; there is an anecdote that has been circulating in the west coast renaissance fair circuit for the last few years. I can't vouch for its truthfulness, but I've heard it from three separate sources, with essentially the same details:
Apparently a performer, whose persona was a highland Scot, was working Southern Cal Fair in full regalia, with a kilt, sporran and a back-slung Claymore broadsword. His car broke down, and he had no change of clothes, so he was forced to use the L.A. public transit system while so attired/outfitted. At some point, a group of young thugs decided they'd pick on the long-haired pansy in the skirt. One of them pulled a gun. The highlander disarmed him.
I don't mean he took the gun away.
When last seen, the remainder of the gang were legging it trippingly towards the Canadian border, while their erstwhile associate was taken to county general, where his arm was eventually reattached. (The performer had used one of his belts as a tourniquet until the paramedics arrived.)
Oddly enough, although the sword was taken as evidence, it was eventually returned to him. L.A. has a lot of laws relating to the entertainment industry on the books. A performer, en route to or from a gig, is allowed to carry working period (non-firearm) weaponry -- and the local DA said the situation was clearly self-defense.
Never overlook the psychological factor in comparing weaponry.
"I remain pro-knife. You have to catch someone before you can stab him, knives don't ricochet, and people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives. A better deal." -- Molly Ivin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I read it, just ain't making any SENSE out of it.
You are telling me, that a home invading perp who would run from an unarmed homeowner, would then banzai charge an ARMED homeowner TELLING THEM TO LEAVE ?
Look, I've been polite, fuck it - that's bullshit and you know it.
I class it in the same fantasy world as believing gun-free zone signs stop armed felons like a magic wall.
My way of lookin at it, the primary person who'd want me unarmed in that situation is the perp, and anyone siding with em on that is just aiding and abetting - crass that it may be, that *IS* how I view the situation, clear ?
Done discussin it with you at this point, we obviously ain't comin to no agreement, and there's no common ground left in reality to bother with.
-F
My stance is simple. No one has the right to initiate violence. But once violence has been initiated, the one offended against has not only the right, but the responsibility to respond in kind, if at all possible. To do otherwise is to give those of ill intent an unfair advantage that is not conductive to the common good.
(For the purpose of this philosophy, the threat of violence is also violence, even if the one threatening doesn't follow through. Entering a home without permission and refusing to leave is also a form of violence-by-threat.)
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Rue,
Here are some additional statistics to add to your own:
(I may edit this to fix formatting if the formatting gets screwed up.)
From: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Per 100,000 population
Country--------Year--Tot Homicide---Firearm Homicide---F. Suicide---% with guns
Switzerland----1994------1.32------------.58---------------5.61---------27.2
France---------1994------1.12------------.44---------------5.14---------22.6
U.S.A.---------1993------5.7------------3.72---------------7.35---------39.0
Norway---------1993-------.97-------------.3----------------3.95---------32.0
England--------1992------1.41------------.11----------------.33----------4.7
Scotland-------1994------2.24------------.19----------------.31----------4.7
N. Ireland-----1994-------6.09-----------5.24---------------1.34----------8.4
What can we deduce from your statistics and mine?
The percentage of households with firearm ownership bears not at all on the percentage of homicides. Norway and Switzerland were missing from your statistic list, but they are poignant examples.
Norway is interesting because although 32 percent of households own guns there, they have the lowest homicide rate of the listed nations. They have even lower homicide rates than our civilized brothers in England.
In short: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. When the anti-gun lobby wakes up and becomes an anti-homicide lobby, maybe they will apply pressure appropriately to address the source of violent crime.
Namely, People. Not Firearms.
Disarming the populace does not fix the ills of society. The ills of society can only be fixed by addressing the ills of society. So please let's stop focusing on tools. It's the minds and hearts of the people that need work.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's not, you telling me "I've destroyed my own argument" and "that's bullshit and I know it" is bullshit, and you should know it. I've given you reasoning, in return you hand wave and tell me its bullshit. If you present an escape route, and they know that they're presence is known, they're thinking about not getting caught. If you're openly aggressive and armed, they're thinking about not getting killed, which is a whole different animal. People generally don't react aggressively unless they're confronted aggressively, if there is another option.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You are telling me, that a home invading perp who would run from an unarmed homeowner, would then banzai charge an ARMED homeowner TELLING THEM TO LEAVE ?
Look, I've been polite, fuck it - that's bullshit and you know it.
I'm not saying don't be armed (this would be where reading what I write and not assuming what I'm saying would have helped you out), I'm saying don't brandish your weapon and be openly aggressive. I thought it was well known psychology that aggression begets aggression, and I arrived at my conclusion at least partially by thinking about how I'd react in a similar situation. Seeing things from other peoples point of view is not 'bullshit' and you should try it.
Quote:As I said, I didn't say don't be armed, I'm saying don't be openly armed and aggressive because that raises the chances of an aggressive response. Police (that is competent police forces) are taught to be asertive but non-threatening when dealing with people, because that defuses the situation, where as aggression and pulling your gun and screaming tends to cause situations.
My way of lookin at it, the primary person who'd want me unarmed in that situation is the perp, and anyone siding with em on that is just aiding and abetting - crass that it may be, that *IS* how I view the situation, clear ?
Quote:It would have helped mutual discussion a great deal if you had listened to what I was saying, rather than assuming what I was saying was 'bullshit' and propaganda from 'the man'.
Done discussin it with you at this point, we obviously ain't comin to no agreement, and there's no common ground left in reality to bother with.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The interesting facet is that your argument works both ways. That is Arming the populace does not fix the ills of society.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In short: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. When the anti-gun lobby wakes up and becomes an anti-homicide lobby, maybe they will apply pressure appropriately to address the source of violent crime.
Namely, People. Not Firearms.
Disarming the populace does not fix the ills of society. The ills of society can only be fixed by addressing the ills of society. So please let's stop focusing on tools. It's the minds and hearts of the people that need work.
My particular take on the gun/anti-gun lobby of America is that their both living in cloud cukooland, they're both extremists who see the middle ground (that is reality) as distasteful pandering to 'the other side'.
Too many Americans seem to have a shocking disrespect for the danger and responsibility of ownership of deadly weapons, its a RIGHT!!!!! Bollocks, owning a deadly weapon is a position of trust, it’s a privilege, and if you're not trustworthy and responsible enough for it, you shouldn't have it. Americas biggest problem with guns is the fact that so many see it as a basic right, and don't respect the position of trust their in for that.
Being able to buy guns with the relative ease you can in the States doesn’t foster a feeling of responsibility, it fosters a feeling of “cool, look at the new gun I got!” like many would talk about their latest IPod.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
Citizen said it best - Arming the populace does not fix the ills of society.
But to address other points -
The statistics that were missing from my post were missing b/c while there were statistics on ownership, there were none found (at that site or its links) on firearm homicide. I originally had them in there but all the 'NAs' just cluttered up the post.
Your statistics and mine appear to be not comparable. For example, mine list 'total firearm death' for the US as 14.05/ 100K, while yours (adding F homicide and F suicide) is only 11.07/ 100K. Perhaps what's missing from yours is F accidental.
But to take your numbers and rearrange them:
----------------- T H ---- F H -------- T F ----- %Homes
NIreland ----- 6.1 ----- 5.2 -------- 6.6 ------- 8.4
USA ---------- 5.7 ----- 3.7 ------- 11.1 ----- 39.0
Scotland ---- 2.2 ----- 0.2 --------- 0.5 ------- 4.7
England ----- 1.4 ----- 0.1 --------- 0.4 ------- 4.7
Switz --------- 1.3 ----- 0.6 --------- 6.2 ------ 27.2
France ------- 1.1 ----- 0.4 --------- 5.6 ------ 22.6
Norway ------ 1.0 ----- 0.3 ----------4.2 ------ 32.0
Here NIreland is the outstanding 'most murderous' country, but in the early 90's from where the data was drawn it could be due to a state of urban warfare.
With the exception of N Ireland, further analysis reveals
---------------- %Homes --- % Homicides w/ Guns
USA--------- 39% --------- 65%
Norway ---- 32% --------- 30%
Switz -------- 27% --------- 46%
France ----- 23% --------- 36%
So while there seems to be a 'muderousness' issue in societies in general with the US at the top of the 'developed nations' list, the availability of firearms roughly corresponds with their percentage use in murder.
And I can't think of anyplace in the US where having a widely armed populace would improve the situation. As rough examples and to maybe start you thinking about your own area - South Central LA ? No. Pasadena ? No.
Finally, FremD mentioned some cases that 'proved' making guns more legally available reduced 'crime rates'. Now I know this is not your argument so I'm not asking you to address it, but until someone shows me statistics I'm going with the data I have.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um......
I don't buy stats anyhow, but I'm willing to humor you here Rue.
But do you really believe that the higher deathrate in America can be attributed only to guns?
I don't imagine you'd disagree with me that we have so many societial ills stateside that just lend themselves to murderousness. We are a lost and mixed up crowd here and we've never been at each other's throats more than we are today.
We don't hate each other any less than we did yesterday.... if anything we just mask it better. Underneath a blanket of political correctness and civility lies a whole lot of hate and resentment.
I don't believe that many of your examples, barring Ireland of course, have this to contend with. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi 6-ix
I was going to get into that - looking at relative poverty rates and so forth - but to do justice (so to speak) to the entire topic would take a PhD thesis. What I would say in general is that many developed European societies that until recently had kings and queens (and some still do) seem to have done much better with the whole 'democracy' concept than the US. Government as representative of the people as a whole, promoting the general welfare, securing the common defense, providing for themselves and their posterity, and so on.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AnthonyT
Citizen said it best - Arming the populace does not fix the ills of society.
But to address other points -
The statistics that were missing from my post were missing b/c while there were statistics on ownership, there were none found (at that site or its links) on firearm homicide. I originally had them in there but all the 'NAs' just cluttered up the post.
Your statistics and mine appear to be not comparable. For example, mine list 'total firearm death' for the US as 14.05/ 100K, while yours (adding F homicide and F suicide) is only 11.07/ 100K. Perhaps what's missing from yours is F accidental.
But to take your numbers and rearrange them:
----------------- T H ---- F H -------- T F ----- %Homes
NIreland ---- 6.1 ----- 5.2 -------- 6.6 ------- 8.4
USA ---------- 5.7 ---- 3.7 ------- 11.1 ---- 39.0
Scotland ---- 2.2 ---- 0.2 -------- 0.5 ------- 4.7
England ----- 1.4 ---- 0.1 -------- 0.4 ------- 4.7
Switz --------- 1.3 ----- 0.6 -------- 6.2 ----- 27.2
France ------ 1.1 ----- 0.4 -------- 5.6 ----- 22.6
Norway ----- 1.0 ----- 0.3 ---------4.2 ----- 32.0
Here NIreland is the outstanding 'most murderous' country, but in the early 90's from where the data was drawn it could be due to a state of urban warfare.
With the exception of N Ireland, further analysis reveals
---------------- %Homes --- % Homicides w/ Guns
USA--------- 39% --------- 65%
Norway ---- 32% --------- 30%
Switz -------- 27% --------- 46%
France ----- 23% --------- 36%
So while there seems to be a 'muderousness' issue in societies in general with the US at the top of the 'developed nations' list, the availability of firearms roughly corresponds with their percentage use in murder.
And I can't think of anyplace in the US where having a widely armed populace would improve the situation. South Central LA ? No. Pasadena ? No.
Finally, FremD mentioned some cases that 'proved' making guns more legally available reduced 'crime rates'. Now I know this is not your argument so I'm not asking you to address it, but until someone shows me statistics I'm going with the data I have.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
Hello,
'the availability of firearms roughly corresponds with their percentage use in murder.'
The statistics don't seem to support this conclusion, either. According to your lineup, only in the US were a majority of homicides committed with firearms. Further...
Norway, with 7% less gun ownership, had less than 50% the rate of US homicides with guns.
Switzerland, with 12% less gun ownership, had 70% the rate of US homicides with guns.
France, with 16% less gun ownership, had 55% the rate of US homicides with guns.
The percentage of firearms ownership does not seem to scale with the percentage of firearms used in Homicides. That is, the percentages do not seem to increase/decrease at the same rate.
But even if they don't scale together at the same rate, there is at least some corresponding increase. This is akin to admitting that in a country with more cars than trucks, you will have more vehicular homicides with cars than trucks. I can concur with this premise. (Though it is curious that in the case of firearms, the percentages don't scale together. I would have expected them to.)
So what we have determined is this:
Firearm ownership is NOT a causal factor in homicides.
Citizen is quick to argue that we should not classify Firearm Ownership as a 'Right.' It is this position that prevents people from coming to a reasonable compromise on the issue of guns.
I have often said that if people were not trying to eliminate my right to own and carry a firearm, I would strongly support reasonable limitations and regulations upon that right.
The current problem is that many, many people refuse to acknowledge any right to be armed, and thus use any legislation limiting the legality of arms as a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But driving isn't a 'right', it's still a privilege.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It is a fairly universal belief that 'most folk ought to be allowed to drive.' If we can come to that same stance on ownership and carrying of firearms, I will happily work with the system to create reasonable rules that should apply, and eliminate people that are incompetent to own or carry a firearm.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Quite right, Citizen. A fact you've often enough emphasized.
Except that after a lifetime of consideration, I think driving is, in fact, a right.
It's not an explicit right, though. There's nowhere in the constitution where someone's right to drive is guaranteed. This is unlike bearing arms, which is an explicitly guaranteed right. Hence, keeping and bearing arms is much more highly protected than driving a car.
However, liberty is an explicitly protected right, and liberty is a broad and far-reaching concept.
One aspect of liberty is that you are not confined by the government to some designated ghetto. You are free to move about. Move about your neighborhood, move about your city, your state, or your country.
There are lots of ways for people to move about. You could rely entirely on public transportation. This is a lot like relying on the police to provide all of your protections. Some places are well equipped for this. They have excellent bus or train services, for instance.
Most public transportation can't accommodate everyone, however. You may need to go somewhere where there is no public service, or you may need to go at a time when public service isn't provided.
You could hire a taxi. This would be akin to hiring a personal bodyguard, I guess. But taking a taxicab every day is rather expensive. Having taken taxis for very short trips, I'm always astonished to find that I can never seem to spend less than 20 bucks. Investing in a used gas-guzzler is actually cheaper over time, unless I don't go anywhere very often.
You could use a bike. You can't get everywhere quickly in a bike, but it does expand your radius. This would be like carrying a knife or a club, I suppose. Less dangerous than a car, but much more within the means of the economically challenged. But there are places a car can go that a bike would have trouble with. A bike is also severely limited on speed, which affects its radius. It also requires a fair amount of personal strength to operate. A physically challenged individual can't operate a bike well.
Or you could drive. Maximum freedom short of a helicopter. Relatively affordable if you don't insist on having a shiny new model. It accommodates a large radius, it's there when you need it, it can go to a variety of destinations, and it requires a minimum of physical prowess.
So, driving is the best guarantee of the Right to Liberty. This is why the majority of people will agree with the simple premise: "Most folks ought to be allowed to drive."
And then they put reasonable limits on it, while securing the premise.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You could say the same about flying a plane, or a space craft. It's a privilege, it has to be earned. Rights are there, from the moment you're born, they can be taken away (like freedom if you break the law and are sent to prison), but you don't personally need to earn them. That's why driving a car is a privilege, you have to earn it (by passing your test). Everyone should be given the opportunity to earn it, but not "[all] folks ought to be allowed to drive"; only those that have earned it should be given that privilege.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:True.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but while both events may be unlikely, they only have to happen once, and if you’re not prepared, it’s very possible that’s it for you.
Be prepared son, always be prepared Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You could say the same about flying a plane, or a space craft. It's a privilege, it has to be earned. Rights are there, from the moment you're born, they can be taken away (like freedom if you break the law and are sent to prison), but you don't personally need to earn them. That's why driving a car is a privilege, you have to earn it (by passing your test). Everyone should be given the opportunity to earn it, but not "[all] folks ought to be allowed to drive"; only those that have earned it should be given that privilege.
Hello,
Citizen, was quoting 'MOST folks ought to be allowed to drive' too much of a challenge?
And no, rights aren't there from the moment you're born. We regulate Liberty in this country, and we even regulate sex. Fortunately, the only thing you have to do to earn most of your rights is live long enough.
In any event, Liberty is a right, driving is the most practical means for the common man to exercise that right in terms of movement. We regulate freedom of movement in proportion to the danger your chosen conveyence presents, which is why driving is regulated more harshly than bicycling and less harshly than flying.
I am glad to hear that you think everyone should be given the opportunity to earn it. I am confident that you don't feel the driving tests should be engineered in such a way as to weed out the majority of the population. Rather, it should be competence based.
That means you think that most people ought to be allowed to drive.
Just as I think most people ought to be allowed to keep and bear arms.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's right, that's why I put 'all' in brackets, to indicate I had changed the quote from the original in order that it better fit my own sentence, no lie about your statement was expressed or implied.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Citizen, was quoting 'MOST folks ought to be allowed to drive' too much of a challenge?
Quote:That's not earning them at all. You don't need a licence to have sex; you don't need to pass a test.
And no, rights aren't there from the moment you're born. We regulate Liberty in this country, and we even regulate sex. Fortunately, the only thing you have to do to earn most of your rights is live long enough.
Quote:Liberty is a concept, saying driving is liberty is an arbitrary distinction I don't find particularly compelling. It indicates someone is less free, has less liberty if they don’t have a driving licence, which is nonsense.
In any event, Liberty is a right, driving is the most practical means for the common man to exercise that right in terms of movement.
Quote:Yes, though if for whatever reason most of the population were incompetent drivers, I'd have no problem with them being banned from driving.
Rather, it should be competence based.
Quote:No, I think anyone should be given the opportunity to earn the privilege of a driving licence, and anyone who ultimately earns that right ought to be allowed to drive, which is an entirely different thing.
This means you think that most people ought to be allowed to drive.
Quote:Good word play, but I think both are privileges that should be earned. I don't think owning a weapon is a right that anyone can get because they reach a lofty enough age. Someone shouldn't be entrusted with a deadly weapon until they have earned that trust, and proven they can act responsibly with it.
Just as I think most people ought to be allowed to keep and bear arms.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony T
Apparently you read my post and missed the entire point.
As you will see from the numbers there are two trends taking place. One is overall 'murderousness', independent of gun ownership. That's what the first set shows.
The second set indicates that when a murder is committed, countries with the highest rate of overall gun ownership will have a higher percentage of their murders committed with guns.
Go back and look at the numbers. These facts are self-evident and the numbers bear me out.
***************************************************************
But I was too lazy - and, well, still feverish and in major pain - to do a proper regression curve.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
B] Americas biggest problem with guns is the fact that so many see it as a basic right, and don't respect the position of trust their in for that.
Americans don't just see it as a basic right. It is a basic right in law. With that right comes great responsibility. Just because I bought a gun legally doesn't relieve me of any responsibility. If I screw up and use it improperly, I'll be looking at 10 to 20 years in prison just like the guy who bought an illegal gun from a thief on the corner.
Quote:
Being able to buy guns with the relative ease you can in the States doesn’t foster a feeling of responsibility, it fosters a feeling of “cool, look at the new gun I got!” like many would talk about their latest IPod.
You got me here. New guns are "cool". Hope I get one for Christmas.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It is a basic right in law."
Only in the presence of a militia. That means all the other supposed 'reasons' to own a gun - target shooting, hunting, even self-defense - are NOT recognized in the Constitution.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME