Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-27-2007, 08:31 PM   #76
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
Weapons are tools of ill omen. Wielded by the ignorant. If their use is unavoidable,. The wise act with restraint.
I perfectly agree, so where's the harm in trying to make sure those ignorant people can't get a hold of guns, leaving only the wise who are able to act with restraint able to have them?

I have no problems with people owning guns for legitimate reasons, like hunting, sport or even collecting.
It's when people call "self-defence" a valid reason It starts get worrisome. Because the same people who tell you you need to buy a gun from them for protection are the same people who don't want to make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns, because if they did, then you wouldn't need to buy any guns from them, would you?

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2007, 09:48 PM   #77
Gernot Hassenpflug
Dojo: Aunkai, Tokyo
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 319
Japan
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
I perfectly agree, so where's the harm in trying to make sure those ignorant people can't get a hold of guns, leaving only the wise who are able to act with restraint able to have them?

I have no problems with people owning guns for legitimate reasons, like hunting, sport or even collecting.
It's when people call "self-defence" a valid reason It starts get worrisome. Because the same people who tell you you need to buy a gun from them for protection are the same people who don't want to make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns, because if they did, then you wouldn't need to buy any guns from them, would you?
Hehe, in any situation, there are winners and losers. You can choose to join the winners, or stand on the side-lines if you don't want to be a loser. It does not pay to go against the stream. Secrets and their sharing among an exclusive group are a great help of course, if one does not want to be at the mercy of the stream.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 04:18 PM   #78
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
I perfectly agree, so where's the harm in trying to make sure those ignorant people can't get a hold of guns, leaving only the wise who are able to act with restraint able to have them?
Who gets to decide who's ignorant and who's wise?

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
I have no problems with people owning guns for legitimate reasons, like hunting, sport or even collecting.
It's when people call "self-defence" a valid reason It starts get worrisome.
Self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm? But collecting them is?

In some people's opinion, self defense might not be a valid reason to own a gun in some parts of the world. It's been a perfectly good reason to own a gun in every place that I've lived.
Whether I pick up a can-opener, butcher knife, bokken or gun, I am entitled to fight for my life and the lives of my family regardless of what anyone tells me. Being an American and watching Clint Eastwood movies didn't give me this worldview; Love of my family and fear of losing them is giving me cause to take an active role in keeping them safe from those who would do them harm.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Because the same people who tell you you need to buy a gun from them for protection are the same people who don't want to make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns, because if they did, then you wouldn't need to buy any guns from them, would you?
What?

Every gun store owner I've known seriously agrees with the process of background checks. They, and I, both think that there are plenty of laws on the books already, and that they need to be better enforced instead of just making more laws. I've known a few gun store owners, and they're not the scumbags that you just described.

No gun store clerk ever said anything to convince me to own a gun. My personal experience with random violence, and the experiences of some friends of mine who were sexually assaulted convinced me to get a gun. In fact, a gun store worker convinced me to buy a lower caliber, cheaper pistol for my wife because she'd be better able to use it than one that was more powerful.

Some of the people who run gun shops are not all about the money; They might actually think that the lives of their clientele have value, and are worth defending! I, for example, don't teach aikido because it's a lucrative business; I teach it because I think people might need it, and I think their lives are worth defending.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 07:41 PM   #79
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
Who gets to decide who's ignorant and who's wise?
Is that what worries the pro-gun people, that "the man" would deem them unfit of ownership of a gun?

I'd rejoice over the fact that someone took away guns from people who shouldn't have one anyway as "one less off the list who could potentially do harm to me or my family" instead of "they infringed upon my rights to kill anyone who might become my enemy"

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
Self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm? But collecting them is?

In some people's opinion, self defense might not be a valid reason to own a gun in some parts of the world. It's been a perfectly good reason to own a gun in every place that I've lived.
Whether I pick up a can-opener, butcher knife, bokken or gun, I am entitled to fight for my life and the lives of my family regardless of what anyone tells me. Being an American and watching Clint Eastwood movies didn't give me this worldview; Love of my family and fear of losing them is giving me cause to take an active role in keeping them safe from those who would do them harm.
You're right, ownership of a weapon for self-defence where I live isn't a valid reason....
It might be due to the fact that NOBODY ELSE are allowed to get one for that purpose either...
Hence, no need for me to get one.

I repeat, I don't own a gun because the off-chance me or my family would get assaulted by someone with a gun are close to non-existent, astronomically small even.
I'm not saying we don't have gun crimes in Sweden, because we do, but they are used in bank robberies, security transports or against other criminals as disputes of the underworld.

It's a case of "the chicken or the egg", do you get weapons to protect yourself armed criminals, or do the criminals get weapons just in case the victim might be armed?

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
What?

Every gun store owner I've known seriously agrees with the process of background checks. They, and I, both think that there are plenty of laws on the books already, and that they need to be better enforced instead of just making more laws. I've known a few gun store owners, and they're not the scumbags that you just described.
It wasn't the gun store owners I was referring to, they sound like good people with the right idea (not more laws but enforce the one we have, -and i support that, and from the sound of it, so do you) but the weapons manufacturer. The big companies with the money who decides which candidate becomes senators of even president.

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 08:07 PM   #80
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
The big companies with the money who decides which candidate becomes senators of even president.
I know this makes me come off as some sort of "conspiracy theorist" but I can't help it. I just recently watched a Tv series where this was part of the main plot
So I guess this part off my reply was influenced by that

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 12:21 PM   #81
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Is that what worries the pro-gun people, that "the man" would deem them unfit of ownership of a gun?
To a certain extent, yeah. Hitler couldn't have run roughshod across europe without having disarmed the people first. He left the Swiss alone, because they didn't disarm.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
I'd rejoice over the fact that someone took away guns from people who shouldn't have one anyway as "one less off the list who could potentially do harm to me or my family" instead of "they infringed upon my rights to kill anyone who might become my enemy"
It's not about "my right to kill anyone who might become my enemy". It's about my right to kill anyone who is attempting to kill me. Perhaps your laws are different over there, but legal precedent in the U.S. tells me that I can not depend on anybody else, not even the police, to keep me safe. It is my responsibility.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
You're right, ownership of a weapon for self-defence where I live isn't a valid reason....
It might be due to the fact that NOBODY ELSE are allowed to get one for that purpose either...
Hence, no need for me to get one.
I sincerely hope that there is never a need for you to defend yourself at all. I've never been attacked by someone with a gun; I've been attacked, and nearly beaten to death, by guys who enjoyed seven to one odds.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
I repeat, I don't own a gun because the off-chance me or my family would get assaulted by someone with a gun are close to non-existent, astronomically small even.
Same here, but I plan for the contingency. I don't rely on anybody to take care of things for me.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
I'm not saying we don't have gun crimes in Sweden, because we do, but they are used in bank robberies, security transports or against other criminals as disputes of the underworld.
You guys don't have innocent bystanders over there? When the banks and security transports prove too tough a target, do you think that robbers will just go legit and get a job? They will choos another target, one that's easier to steal from.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
It's a case of "the chicken or the egg", do you get weapons to protect yourself armed criminals, or do the criminals get weapons just in case the victim might be armed?
Criminals generally like to overwhelm their victims with size, numbers, or a weapon of some kind. I've never heard of a mugger coming to someone face to face and challenging them to a duel!

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
It wasn't the gun store owners I was referring to, they sound like good people with the right idea (not more laws but enforce the one we have, -and i support that, and from the sound of it, so do you) but the weapons manufacturer. The big companies with the money who decides which candidate becomes senators of even president.
I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, too. That's why I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with the power to defend my family.

Some people believe that taking someone's life in self defense is a horrible thing to do, but it's perfectly moral if they have a cop do it for them.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 09:14 AM   #82
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
To a certain extent, yeah. Hitler couldn't have run roughshod across europe without having disarmed the people first. He left the Swiss alone, because they didn't disarm.
this is so incorrect that it isnt even funny.
no wait, i change my mind. it IS funny.
I can vision Hitler standing around with some of his generals:
"Vell, ve haf reclaimed the Rhineland, which was Ztolen from us by that treaty of Versailles, annexed Austria to join the germans there into greater Germany, it was very popular and the masses cheered when we rolled in. Then we liberated the germans living in Sudetenland from their Czechoslovakian rule, after all, they vere once part of the great holy roman empire which we seek to recreate.
Then those cursed French and British went and allied themselves with Poland. So we had to go to war with them as well.
But not before we had taken Norway to control the swedish Iron ore."
"And Denmark, mein fuhrer"
"What? yes, and Denmark.. almost forgot about them, vell.. they do their part in preventing the British navy into crossing into the baltic sea i suppose.
As luck would have it, Stalin decided to take his chance into invading Finland in the hopes that the none of the allied countries would interfere, he was right, so they turned to us to help them withstand Stalins aggression. So, now between our forces in Norway and in Finland, Sweden caved in and promised to sell us the iron ore we need as long as we dont invade them as well and they stay neutral.
We had to take France so that they dont attack us in the back while we take care of the Russians. I guess we have to send Benito some troops into Africa so that he can secure the Mediterranean sea... Put Rommel on that will you? And now.. lets go east, we got a score to settle with Herr Stalin.."
"Aber, mein Fuhrer, have you not forgotten something?" (points at a large white piece on the map)
"Switzerland? Ach mein Gott Gustaf, are you mad?! zey have RIFLES Gustaf, BIG honking Hunting rifles, every man, woman and child are running around armed to the teeth! How possibly can our Tanks, bomber planes, and Waffen-SS who rather die than surrender compete with them? No Gustaf, lets leave the Swiss alone..."

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
It's not about "my right to kill anyone who might become my enemy". It's about my right to kill anyone who is attempting to kill me. Perhaps your laws are different over there, but legal precedent in the U.S. tells me that I can not depend on anybody else, not even the police, to keep me safe. It is my responsibility.
People getting guns because they dont believe in the Law Enforcement system to protect them dont solve the problem but rather add to it..
Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

I sincerely hope that there is never a need for you to defend yourself at all. I've never been attacked by someone with a gun; I've been attacked, and nearly beaten to death, by guys who enjoyed seven to one odds.
had a gun helped you in this situation? or had these seven people disarmed you and likely killed you with your own gun?
Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

Same here, but I plan for the contingency. I don't rely on anybody to take care of things for me.

You guys don't have innocent bystanders over there?
No...
Its very rare at least.
When rivals criminals kill each other of they do so by break into their homes and shoot them, or force them into a car and drive them out into the woods and shoots them there, or sneaks up behind them on the street and shoot them in the back..
Even if these people are armed they will not get a chance to use their weapon as they are taken by surprise.
Generally, criminals avoid knocking each other off in public where bystanders are, but not because they are concerned about their welfare, but to limit the number of witnesses.

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
When the banks and security transports prove too tough a target, do you think that robbers will just go legit and get a job? They will choos another target, one that's easier to steal from.
There are no armed security guards in banks or on transports, so there wont be any major shootouts where bystanders can get hurt.
rob a bank or transport and you will only get a paint cartridge in with the loot destroying all the money, making it worthless..
Unless youre one of the professional criminals who know how to bypass such a device, in which case you can rest assured youre in the police files and will get wakened by a knock on the door by some officers who have some questions concerning your whereabouts at the time in question.

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
Criminals generally like to overwhelm their victims with size, numbers, or a weapon of some kind. I've never heard of a mugger coming to someone face to face and challenging them to a duel!
Neither have I.
If a Mugger wants to rob someone, the fact that you are armed will only make them go after someone else, it wont stop the actual robbing.
And if for some reason they really want to rob YOU, (maybe you have just recently withdrawn a huge amount of money to pay for something in cash) the fact that you are armed will only make them either get bigger guns or take you by surprise so you wont get a chance to use your weapon anyway.

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, too. That's why I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with the power to defend my family.

Some people believe that taking someone's life in self defense is a horrible thing to do, but it's perfectly moral if they have a cop do it for them.
Up until yesterday weve only had over the last couple of months one fatal shooting in Sweden.
A family in a small community have over the past two years been harassed by a group of teenagers. The eldest son in the family have had his moped attempt to being stolen, been forced of the roads, the mother have been harassed while going shopping. mailbox destroyed, eggs been thrown at the windows. Basically harassed and terrorized over two years.
Then, in the middle of the night, a small group of these harassing teenagers show up, armed with clubs and want to "talk" to someone in the family over something that transgressed earlier that day.
The father in the family finally "snaps", goes out on the porch with his shotgun and fires two times, killing one 15 year old and severely injuring a 16 year old..
Then he returns inside and calls the police..
Self defence?
Not according to Swedish law. But the case is still in court.. so we will have to wait and see.

The other shooting happened just yesterday, and other than the victim being "known to the police" there is not much to tell..

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 12:39 PM   #83
Tom Fish
Dojo: McAllen
Location: McAllen
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

There is a potential to abuse every civil right as well as evidence to prove that it does happen. If this potential abuse is an argument to suspend any right, the same thing would apply to all of the other rights. If you think more laws will ensure freedom, your understanding of freedom might be a little skewed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 03:57 PM   #84
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Tom Fish wrote: View Post
There is a potential to abuse every civil right as well as evidence to prove that it does happen. If this potential abuse is an argument to suspend any right, the same thing would apply to all of the other rights. If you think more laws will ensure freedom, your understanding of freedom might be a little skewed.
Like... the patriot act?

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 06:58 PM   #85
Tom Fish
Dojo: McAllen
Location: McAllen
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Like... the patriot act?
In my opinion this would be an example.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 11:27 PM   #86
Bronson
 
Bronson's Avatar
Dojo: Seiwa Dojo and Southside Dojo
Location: Battle Creek & Kalamazoo, MI
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,677
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
People getting guns because they dont believe in the Law Enforcement system to protect them dont solve the problem but rather add to it..
Just a quick point. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement agencies are not duty bound to provide protection.

Bronson

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 11:52 AM   #87
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Bronson Diffin wrote: View Post
Just a quick point. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement agencies are not duty bound to provide protection.

Bronson
Yup. Please see the link in post #65.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 12:12 PM   #88
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
"Switzerland? Ach mein Gott Gustaf, are you mad?! zey have RIFLES Gustaf, BIG honking Hunting rifles, every man, woman and child are running around armed to the teeth! How possibly can our Tanks, bomber planes, and Waffen-SS who rather die than surrender compete with them? No Gustaf, lets leave the Swiss alone..."
I believe that the Swiss are required to have military grade weaponry in their homes.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
People getting guns because they dont believe in the Law Enforcement system to protect them dont solve the problem but rather add to it..

Yech! What is that awful taste?!

Oh. It's words in my mouth.

I never said that I "didn't believe in the law enforcement system". I said that the courts have repeatedly decided that my government does not have to do anything to protect my family. They have taken that particular responsibility and dropped it in my lap! I don't have a choice in the matter!
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
had a gun helped you in this situation? or had these seven people disarmed you and likely killed you with your own gun?
If I'd been old enought to have a gun legally at the time, I could have emptied the clip long before they reached me in that situation.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
If a Mugger wants to rob someone, the fact that you are armed will only make them go after someone else, it wont stop the actual robbing.
Unless I shoot them!

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
And if for some reason they really want to rob YOU, (maybe you have just recently withdrawn a huge amount of money to pay for something in cash) the fact that you are armed will only make them either get bigger guns or take you by surprise so you wont get a chance to use your weapon anyway.
Having a bigger gun doesn't necessarily save one from being shot!

Look; I'm not saying that guns are going to save everyone in every situation. I'm simply saying that I want to have the option of defending my family.

Especially when legal precedent says that the police don't have to do anything when my life is in danger.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
The father in the family finally "snaps", goes out on the porch with his shotgun and fires two times, killing one 15 year old and severely injuring a 16 year old..
Then he returns inside and calls the police..
Self defence?
Not according to Swedish law. But the case is still in court.. so we will have to wait and see.
In my opinion, there's nothing to wait and see about. The father is a murderer. He might try for an insanity plea, but his actions were definitely not legal.

He should have called the cops and told them he'd already shot the people who were threatening his family. That would bring the cops running, and the boys might be in jail, and not dead.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 08:58 PM   #89
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
I believe that the Swiss are required to have military grade weaponry in their homes.
in 1940?
Sorry, but I was only making fun of your inadequate knowledge of history. In reality Hitler had plans on invading Switzerland, he just decided it wasn't worth the effort since they, as well as Sweden, decided to go all defensive and "digging" in, concentrating on slowing down a invasion. Hitler was in a hurry to attack Soviet Union and since he had Great Britain backed up to their island and the only guys left close to him basically showing their hands and backing away saying they dont want to fight it wouldve only been a waste of time jumping them and giving Stalin more time to prepare his forces.

But to say that He didn't attack the Swiss because they hadnt disarmed their civilian population just sound like pro-weapon lobbyist propaganda to me..

I should've gone with Godwins law and declare myself a winner of this particular argument the moment you brought up Hitler

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

Yech! What is that awful taste?!

Oh. It's words in my mouth.

I never said that I "didn't believe in the law enforcement system". I said that the courts have repeatedly decided that my government does not have to do anything to protect my family. They have taken that particular responsibility and dropped it in my lap! I don't have a choice in the matter!
oops, my bad, wasnt my intention to put words in your mouth.

Anyway, its a sad thing the precedence that your government has taken to decide upon when it comes to handle crime prevention.
In Sweden, the duties of the Police are declared in Polislagen 1984:387 in which the first and second article declare that the tasks of the Police are to "..promote Justice and Safety [....] uphold public order and safety as well as in other matters ensure protection and other aid."
Naturally, mistakes are made, sometimes people who are under threat of being victimized don't get the protection they need. In those cases investigations happen to decide whether there was a mistake in the judgement of threat assessment, but not swept under the rug as "not our problem".

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

If I'd been old enought to have a gun legally at the time, I could have emptied the clip long before they reached me in that situation.
unless those people had been armed with firearms themselves you would not have been able to plead self defence for that over here. And of course, HAD theyve been armed with firearms they would have returned the gesture, but hell, at least you would've gone down in a blaze of glory...
Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

Unless I shoot them!
yes... a very Aikido approach...

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

Having a bigger gun doesn't necessarily save one from being shot!

Look; I'm not saying that guns are going to save everyone in every situation. I'm simply saying that I want to have the option of defending my family.
And all I'm saying is that the high rate of Gun crimes is the price you have to pay for the right to do so...

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 10:13 PM   #90
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Anyway, its a sad thing the precedence that your government has taken to decide upon when it comes to handle crime prevention.
In Sweden, the duties of the Police are declared in Polislagen 1984:387 in which the first and second article declare that the tasks of the Police are to "..promote Justice and Safety [....] uphold public order and safety as well as in other matters ensure protection and other aid."
There is the issue of response time. Having the means to defend yourself (as in being proactive) is in my opinion much preferable to being reactive when time may be of the essence.

This runs true whether you are learning first aid, self defense, or hiking in the woods.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 09:51 AM   #91
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

I recognize the logic about "Its better to have a gun and dont need it, than to need a gun and dont have it"

But theres also the issue of "using a gun when you don't need to" as well.

Can you to a 100% guarantee that never ever will you become so angry at someone else that you'll fetch your gun and shoot that other person and not give a damn about the consequences?

Can you to a 100% guarantee that never ever will anyone in your family get so angry that they don't care about the consequences and get hold of your gun/guns?

The more guns people have in their homes to defend themselves with, the more guns will get stolen by burglars (when youre not home to defend it) and then sold on to other criminals.

Thats what I was referring to in a previous post when I said that, "owning a gun adds to the problem rather than solving it"

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 11:53 AM   #92
Tom Fish
Dojo: McAllen
Location: McAllen
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

If a 100% safety guarantee was required for ownership of garden tools, steak knives, lawn mowers, dogs,cars, planes,etc. then you would have a legitimate argument.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 12:15 PM   #93
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
In reality Hitler had plans on invading Switzerland, he just decided it wasn't worth the effort since they, as well as Sweden, decided to go all defensive and "digging" in, concentrating on slowing down a invasion. Hitler was in a hurry to attack Soviet Union and since he had Great Britain backed up to their island and the only guys left close to him basically showing their hands and backing away saying they dont want to fight it wouldve only been a waste of time jumping them and giving Stalin more time to prepare his forces.
But to say that He didn't attack the Swiss because they hadnt disarmed their civilian population just sound like pro-weapon lobbyist propaganda to me..

I should've gone with Godwins law and declare myself a winner of this particular argument the moment you brought up Hitler
Hitler decreed that firearms should be registered; It seemed reasonable enough at the time. Then, when he had the names and addresses of all the gun owners, he went and took them away.

He took the Jew's firearms first.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
oops, my bad, wasnt my intention to put words in your mouth.
No big. It seems to happen all the time. Good thing we have documentation.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Anyway, its a sad thing the precedence that your government has taken to decide upon when it comes to handle crime prevention.
In Sweden, the duties of the Police are declared in Polislagen 1984:387 in which the first and second article declare that the tasks of the Police are to "..promote Justice and Safety [....] uphold public order and safety as well as in other matters ensure protection and other aid."
Naturally, mistakes are made, sometimes people who are under threat of being victimized don't get the protection they need. In those cases investigations happen to decide whether there was a mistake in the judgement of threat assessment, but not swept under the rug as "not our problem".
It sounds like you have a court system that doesn't stink. Do everything you can to keep it that way.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
unless those people had been armed with firearms themselves you would not have been able to plead self defence for that over here. And of course, HAD theyve been armed with firearms they would have returned the gesture, but hell, at least you would've gone down in a blaze of glory...
unless...

would've...

We can both wax intellectual about what might or might not have happened, but the fact remains that I was nearly killed and I will never just allow that to happen to me again. Or my wife. Or my daughter.

From your posts, I'm concluding that you live in a much less violent place than I do. Congratulations. The fact remains that all of us are one natural disaster away from survival of the fittest.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
yes... a very Aikido approach...
Aikido's great for multiple assailants when they're all attacking you. What are your plans for the contingency of these attackers splitting up to attack you, your significant other, your child, and grandma all at the same time? It might not have ever happened to you, but it happens.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
And all I'm saying is that the high rate of Gun crimes is the price you have to pay for the right to do so...
All I'm saying is that is wrong. When guns are taken away, gun crimes go up.

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Sorry, but I was only making fun of your inadequate knowledge of history.
Thanks. Have you noticed that regardless of what your beliefs are or what you've said to me, that I have yet to do that to you? A very aiki approach.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
pro-weapon lobbyist propaganda to me..
Characterise me as a gun nut if it makes it easier for you, but my sincere hope is that neither you or I ever need a gun. I don't want to shoot anybody, either.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 05:28 PM   #94
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

He took the Jew's firearms first.
now THAT I can believe. A happy revelation that you do have a better knowledge of history than I was first led to believe

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

All I'm saying is that is wrong. When guns are taken away, gun crimes go up.
source please
Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post

Characterise me as a gun nut if it makes it easier for you, but my sincere hope is that neither you or I ever need a gun. I don't want to shoot anybody, either.
Heck, you might not have guessed it, but I'm somewhat of a gun nut too.. with quite a few books about Firearms, tanks, military aviation..
But the closest thing I have to a firearm is a Colt Army replica


Now that we might have found some common ground, I can mention that its not the actual ownership of the gun I'm objecting too. But the reason for that ownership.

I don't see a danger of letting hunters own a rifle or a few to go out hunting with.
I am not objecting to those people owning a gun who like to drive out to the firing range on a saturday afternoon with their buddies.
Because these are the kind of people who have a healthy degree of respect and knowledge about guns. Quite possibly they have a weapons safe to keep the gun(s) in when they're not used and to prevent the risk of having them stolen if there is a burglary.

But people who buy a gun for the sole reason to protect them self with but in reality have no ******* clue as to what they just bought or how to use it with respect are just idiots.

For your sake, and your family, I hope you belong to the part of gun owners that use your gun now and then in a safe environment (the range), bring your kids and wife along and confer that respect for the handgun to them. And not keep it in a drawer for it waiting to be used... cuz thats a gun with accident written all over it.

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 07:02 PM   #95
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
source please
http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm
All backed by listed sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../10/ngun10.xml
News article with sources listed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 08:31 PM   #96
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

My whole life I was raised that it was my right, nay, my duty to own firearms. I have owned shotguns, rifles, revolvers, etc. When I moved out on my own I was not comfortable keeping firearms in my apartment with 6 party loving college kids, so I sold them all off. Now, as an older adult with a wife I have decided again to keep my duty as an American to be armed.

I am in the process of introducing my wife to firearms. We have found a 22 that fits her well and she has been shooting at the range each week. I am about to buy myself a SAXD 9mm and probably a compact for a carry.

I think everyone should be armed. Not for self defense, but to prepare ourselves to defend ourselves. This might mean hunting for food, defending against robbers, protecting the life of another, or even defending yourself against a larger power.

In my state, I have the right to kill anyone who is threatening me, my property, or anyone else. That is how the law is written. I would hope to never need to do such a thing. But if you break into my house, you are dead. I'm not going to risk myself to try to save you and confine you in a safe way. I'm going to protect myself from an unknown and just shoot.

This does not concern me, in fact it reassures me to know people in my state know the law and know what can happen when they break into a house. What does concern me, a good bit, was what I found when looking into my CCL. In my state, you do not need any training to get a carry permit. All you have to do is fill out a form and pass a background check. That is it. Untrained gun owners are scary. A person who is wearing a weapon without any training on it's use AND it's retention is even more scary. The thought that a person wearing a weapon near me might not even be trained on keeping someone from taking that weapon away from them and hurting him, me, or others is something I wish my state would address. I think before you are allowed to carry a weapon you should need to pass marksmanship, gun ownership, and weapon retention classes.

I know I will be taking refresher courses on all 3, and so will my wife.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2007, 11:39 AM   #97
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm
All backed by listed sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../10/ngun10.xml
News article with sources listed.
Thanks for fielding that one, Mark. It looks like I'll get to eat lunch today!

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2007, 11:54 AM   #98
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
My whole life I was raised that it was my right, nay, my duty to own firearms. I have owned shotguns, rifles, revolvers, etc. When I moved out on my own I was not comfortable keeping firearms in my apartment with 6 party loving college kids, so I sold them all off. Now, as an older adult with a wife I have decided again to keep my duty as an American to be armed.
Sounds similar to my story, except I kept my .22 rifle. It was locked up in a box at my parents' house and never saw the light of day, but I still owned it.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
What does concern me, a good bit, was what I found when looking into my CCL. In my state, you do not need any training to get a carry permit. All you have to do is fill out a form and pass a background check. That is it. Untrained gun owners are scary. A person who is wearing a weapon without any training on it's use AND it's retention is even more scary. The thought that a person wearing a weapon near me might not even be trained on keeping someone from taking that weapon away from them and hurting him, me, or others is something I wish my state would address. I think before you are allowed to carry a weapon you should need to pass marksmanship, gun ownership, and weapon retention classes.

I know I will be taking refresher courses on all 3, and so will my wife.
Yeah, that's pretty alarming. That's why I've always thought that as a person who knows how to shoot, doesn't have a drug or alcahol habit, and has the ability to floor someone if they get close enough to take my pistol, it is my duty to carry one.

Carrying this thing around is not fun. It's uncomfortable, and quite an inconvenience at times, and it doesn't make me feel like a "BIG MAN". I carry it because I have the ability to, and I want to have another option when I need to protect myself or my neighbors.

The other side of the coin concerning ones ability to retain the weapon is the option of gun ownership for the disabled and the elderly. I think that they should be able to have the option to protect themselves with a firearm too. Small caliber might be better for people who need a lighter weapon for increased accuracy. My wife has a .22, 'cause she's too light for a .357.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2007, 12:40 PM   #99
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Another article with sources listed:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html

It states what most of us have known for years. The large cities here in the US have the most restrictive gun control laws, but also have the highest crime levels.

It's interesting to note this:
Quote:
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).
Also, another article discussing the "a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal" quote that a lot of people like to use - incorrectly.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

And some perspective on accidental deaths broken down by age groups and causes.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 03:15 AM   #100
Walter Martindale
Location: Edmonton, AB
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 771
Canada
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Ok... Long discussion of the need/right/obligation to own, not own, use, not use firearms from people from vastly different cultures.
I'm Canadian, currently living and working in New Zealand. Had a little bit of abuse from family members when very young, had an attempted male rape when I was 14, by a 21 year-old (broke his nose with the back of my head). These may be factors surrounding my having taken up wrestling, then judo and now Aikido.
Father was an "instructor of gunnery" in the Canadian artillery, gave me my first air rifle and some very strict training when I was 9. and my first .22 cooey rifle at 12. In the Manitoba prairie, gophers were in big trouble. Dad also sent me to a junior rifle club for target, hunter, and safety training - I was certified to be a safety instructor at 16.
that's my background - since 12 years old, I've continuously owned at least 1 firearm (had at one point about 26, all legally registered to me in Canada). Currently classed as "expert" in fullbore rifle, ISSF free pistol, Centre fire, rapid fire, and air pistol, and "Master" in ISSF Standard Pistol. I train rowing coaches for my employment.

Cultural differences between USA and Canada commence with how the nations migrated westward from the original colonies, and the fact that the US broke away from England, while Canada still recognizes the British Monarch as the official head of state.

In the US, the settlers, ranchers, and explorers migrated westward ahead of the lawkeepers, and the nation was formed out of a revolutionary war that ended up with the entrenched right to keep and bear arms, against tyranny (and, concurrently, against buttheads that want to deprive you of your property, life, liberty, etc.) In Canada, the North West Mounted Police migrated westward ahead of the settlers, and people didn't have as much need to defend themselves against the aforementioned buttheads. Mainly against wolves, bears, cougars, and other predators, (or competitors for food animals).

So, the laws of the two nations have evolved differently.. In many of the US states, given that you pass certain tests of sanity and so on, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon (ccw referred to in other's posts) partly for self-protection. In those states that have enacted ccw legislation, violent crimes rates have fallen significantly (there are citations, but I won't dig them up) in part because the butthead who would have previously robbed convenience store "a" might not do it now, because the clerk, or other customers, for that matter might just be in a position to shoot back.

In Canada, where it is virtually impossible to get CCW for protection purposes (despite enabling legislation, permits are almost never issued), armed robbery of convenience stores, other stores, banks, people in their homes, and people on the street is rising quite significantly, because the bad guys don't care about firearm law, and arm themselves (with un registered firearms, stolen firearms, etc., and they themselves don't carry a "Possession and Acquisition License" (PAL). ("If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will own guns," can be interpreted a number of ways, can't it?)

In many parts of the USA, it is legal to shoot a person breaking into your home with the intent of committing burglary or other acts because you don't know the person's intent for breaking in, and with the "my home, my castle" philosophy, it's better to be safe than to be sorry.

In Canada (and, I understand, the UK) if you happen to have a firearm that is not locked in a gun safe, separate from the ammunition, and that is loaded for use on a person attacking your home, person, family, you can be severely prosecuted for defending your own life, etc. (same true here in NZ).

The thing about "armed response" at home - there's an often quoted phrase "Dial 911 and die"... (for those in other countries, 911 is the North American emergency call number that gets you to a central dispatcher who flings you off to police, fire, or ambulance, depending upon what you tell them - the number in NZ is 111).

As others have stated, the police in the US (and Canada) are NOT obligated to protect you, only to pick up the pieces later on, and arrest the bastard that killed you, if they can figure out who it was, and then find the person.

If someone is breaking into YOUR house, and you dial 911 in the USA, in most cases you can tell the cops why you had to kill the bastard(s) who were assaulting your little castle.

In a similar situation in Canada, you are expected to try to escape the situation (HA!!!) and wait for the police. So - you dial 911 - whoever was at the time breaking in to your abode, has now breached the door or window, and is RUNNING at you with a firearm, blunt weapon, or edged weapon, and you're trying to get out the words "yes, my name is ______, and I live at ______, and I think that the 100 kg person who is currently lunging at me is going to cause me trouble, could you please come here and stop him?" (please note the ironic tone?) The Police, in response to the EMERGENCY call from you, show up sometimes 2-3 hours later, and pick up the pieces.... After all, they are busy people.

Cultures differ - in the US, there's the concept that "an armed society is a polite society". I've seen the difference - when people in the US disagree, it's usually words and not too often a fight, because someone might just pull out a firearm to "equalize" a fight.

In Canada and NZ, when people disagree, someone uses the F word, sticks a middle finger in the air, and often fisticuffs ensue. Lately, individuals have been ending up severely beaten when set upon by several people.

Sweden probably has a more polite and safer society because it is older, has been through it's frontier days (of the vikings, for example), and has matured past the stage that the US and other former colonies of England are going through now. NZ, for example, has the colonizer Europeans and the colonized Maori (who were a warrior society - there's a famous NZ opera singer, who happens to be Maori, who sometimes says to people who treat her in a racist way that it's OK, my ancestors used to eat your ancestors), and pretty strict firearm laws - it's a very safe place, unless you're out wandering around the wrong district after the pubs close - but that's true anywhere, isn't it.

Anyway - this is getting long enough (the birthday bottle of bubbly will do that to a person), The Swede and the "Merkan" are both right, for their cultures. The Swede would be safe, if out of place, in most of the US. The "Merkan" would be much safer in Sweden than he is at home, despite being unarmed.

Whew - sorry - this started with most of a bottle of wine in me and there's only an ounce or so left. oops, gone...
Cheers,
W

Last edited by Walter Martindale : 10-25-2007 at 03:22 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the whole competition thing Nick General 26 02-05-2001 08:01 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate