Soladrin wrote: What I seem to be getting out of this is that American culture has a lot of fear ingrained into it for some reason. :\
Yeah, I realize the majority of gun owners are probably doing it primarily for recreational use, but there does seem to be a culture of needing to defend yourself from everything on your own.
It's kind sad to look at it from the outside really, I don't trust my government to handle economics and all that stuff properly most of the time. But I do damn well trust them to keep me safe.
I don't think it's a fear thing as much as it's a practical thing. I get the impression that a lot of European Dakkaites (and even urban-dwelling American Dakkaites) are forgetting how many American gun-owners live in rural areas. If something bad happens where most of my family lives, the police are not going to arrive in time to stop it. It's not as much not trusting the government to keep you safe as much as recognizing if something bad goes down, you are going to be on your own for a significant amount of time.
Soladrin wrote: What I seem to be getting out of this is that American culture has a lot of fear ingrained into it for some reason. :\
Yeah, I realize the majority of gun owners are probably doing it primarily for recreational use, but there does seem to be a culture of needing to defend yourself from everything on your own.
It's kind sad to look at it from the outside really, I don't trust my government to handle economics and all that stuff properly most of the time. But I do damn well trust them to keep me safe.
I wouldn't call it "fear" for most of us... just a strong sense of Distrtust.
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
None of us are certain that something bad will happen, but many of us recognize the possibility. Many of us also recognize that the possibility of coming into a situation where a gun would be useful is a lot higher in the US than it is in the Netherlands, and I'm not even just talking about self-defense either.
I'm not sure how that makes the USA a particularly fearful society.
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
Again, can't speak for all americans here, but I'm NOT certain that something bad things will happen... it's just rather more that I'd rather be prepared for bad things to happen, and not need those preparations, than for something to happen, and not be prepared.
For me personally, I KNOW that I can handle myself in any situation. This is more a result of things I've been through, and life choices, and hobbies etc. BUT, I am a parent of two, and I think that a tiny bit of fear of something happening to your kids especially will affect choices you make, and eventualities that you have to prepare for. I mean, most people would agree that it's a good idea to have a small stock of certain medications for when you or a loved one gets sick... This doesn't necessarily mean that you are afraid of getting sick (unless you let yourself become that way), just that you are thinking ahead.
Hordini wrote: I'm not sure how that makes the USA a particularly fearful society.
It doesn't.
I'm going to simply reject the premise of this line of conversation, given that the motive behind gun control could easily be argued as being "fear" which could then be extrapolated to show that gun-control supporters from other countries are similarly fearful.
I wouldn't say I'm any more fearful or paranoid for carrying a pistol during my day to day then I would say I'm fearful/paranoid for keeping a roadside emergency/standed kit in my car, or having a first aid kit and fire extinguisher in the house.
Soladrin wrote: I'm curious now. Why do Americans have such MASSIVE trust issues with their own Governments? (apart from the fact that almost everyone outside of America thinks your politicians are absolutely bonkers anyway)
We were founded by people who disliked governments. Its almost like the saw RED when any government dude in a COAT wandered by.
I remember Abe Lincoln when he went back in time to kick ass at Yorktown. "Four score and seven years ago, we kicked royal ass. If those haggis throwing bad teethed turkeys show up again, we'll call on all red blooded pickup drivin Texas rednecks to stop Yamamoto, King George, and those accursed Liechtensteinians in one fell swoop, or my name aint Honest Abe! Now after I take themissus to a show I'm going to go kick the great great granpda of Adolph Hitler right in the baby maker. Hey Grant, get me a brewski."
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
Jos, this is a picture that was taken of me on Saturday, do you see how "bare" the surrounding area is? I was in a town of 1,500. the closest town is 30 minutes away. The house I was at had at least 5 guns and a few shotguns. A few of those were for the purpose of hunting game for sport and food. Some of them were for protection, because much like the closest city was 30 minutes away... so was the closest police and emergency medical service...
The "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away" saying might just be a joke, but we have places where the cops are far enough away that you don't think about even calling them, because they won't get there in time to do anything...
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
Because it has happened for various values of 'bad' to me and to people I know.
I have had situations where a firearm was THE correct tool for the job, and other occasions where it was a very useful tool though I could have made do without. Not all 'self defense' as in there was a bad guy. A few times it involved something threatening my horses for example. A couple of years ago a cougar took out two cattle less than a mile away from my property. Think I want to wait for the deputy to show up if something like that is mauling my animals? Or worse, threatens my child? The copperhead in the front yard that almost got one of the dogs, well he met Mr. Mossberg. The moccasin that decided to make the area of the pond where my daughter fishes and feeds the ducks his home? He met Mr Mossberg too.
I've also been very happy on a couple of occasions when I had a fire extinguisher and/or a damned good first aid kit. I keep a jack and a spare in each of our vehicles, as well as a flashlight because again, I have been in the situation where they were pretty danged important. When I owned a boat I kept a case of MREs and two 5-gallon jugs of fresh water on board. I once had a battery die at night while out in the ocean fishing and spent several hours drifting. That sucked and could have REALLY sucked.
Years in the military and years living in rural (and city) areas have taught me that it it always better to have and not need than need and not have. If you rely on first responders to PREVENT you being in a bad situation or to save you when they fail to prevent it, you are (in my opinion) an idiot. Self reliance is what every responsible adult should strive for.
Yeah I suppose my trauma grade first aid kit makes me paranoid right?
Then again I carry a military grade IFAC when I'm out hunting or shooting. Almost like I want to the tools to deal with gun shot wounds on hand in an environment I might take a bullet by accident.
Ah well I'm just a paranoid nutcase, what do I know?
Yeah I suppose my trauma grade first aid kit makes me paranoid right?
Then again I carry a military grade IFAC when I'm out hunting or shooting. Almost like I want to the tools to deal with gun shot wounds on hand in an environment I might take a bullet by accident.
Ah well I'm just a paranoid nutcase, what do I know?
Wait one.....having first aid kits make you paranoid now? Damn
1. I've a medic bag in my Yeti Wrangler Jeep
2. I've a Advance combat lifesaver bag in my Reg Wrangler Jeep
3. I've a Advance Combat Lifesaver bag in my Mistibishi Spyder
4. My IFAK is still on my bdy armor....with the "Needle of extreme confidence" in it.
What idioit said we're paranoid now? Isn't it like Federal Law for us to stop and render assistant if no one suitable is there? Besides I rather arrive on scene with everything I need that I might need.. Including those venom trauma bandages...Isreali bandage....The clotter bondage...torniquiet...IV solutions and set up...you name it I can hanle it from either vehicles. I piss on those bland first aid kits they sell for vehicles.
Yeah I suppose my trauma grade first aid kit makes me paranoid right?
Then again I carry a military grade IFAC when I'm out hunting or shooting. Almost like I want to the tools to deal with gun shot wounds on hand in an environment I might take a bullet by accident.
Ah well I'm just a paranoid nutcase, what do I know?
Wait one.....having first aid kits make you paranoid now? Damn
1. I've a medic bag in my Yeti Wrangler Jeep
2. I've a Advance combat lifesaver bag in my Reg Wrangler Jeep
3. I've a Advance Combat Lifesaver bag in my Mistibishi Spyder
4. My IFAK is still on my bdy armor....with the "Needle of extreme confidence" in it.
What idioit said we're paranoid now? Isn't it like Federal Law for us to stop and render assistant if no one suitable is there? Besides I rather arrive on scene with everything I need that I might need.. Including those venom trauma bandages...Isreali bandage....The clotter bondage...torniquiet...IV solutions and set up...you name it I can hanle it from either vehicles. I piss on those bland first aid kits they sell for vehicles.
No Whembly you cannot have mine. In fact you've seen one of mine if you remember the thread on females serving as 11B thread....posted all my gear I typically carry out the wire...think we came up with 120 lbs approx...compare to 150-200 lbs or something like that. One off the advance Lifesaver bag was in it. Also the IFAK...torniqet can be seen....had a velcro patch of Achmed saying "I KKKEEELLLLL YYOOOUUU" on it
I'm curious now. Why do Americans have such MASSIVE trust issues with their own Governments? (apart from the fact that almost everyone outside of America thinks your politicians are absolutely bonkers anyway)
Errr....Not meaning to be a <CENSORED> here, but did you not just answer your own question? Why do you assume that the above is limited to people OUTSIDE of the USA?
because much like the closest city was 30 minutes away... so was the closest police and emergency medical service...
Doesn't really get any better in the city. Between time getting the call out in the first place (Hold on, don't hit me with that crowbar, I have to get my cell phone! No, give it back!), getting the information through to dispatch, to dispatch routing units to you, to units actually A: Getting to the address and B: Not getting the wrong house or apartment through miscommunication or other human error ...you're still probably looking at 3-5 minutes, best case.
It does not take 3-5 minutes for one of them "Serious" fights to end if one is going to take place. Realistically no one is going to be there to help you, simply because you can't break the laws of physics and have a handful of people cover as much area as officers tend to get tasked with, and also respond quick enough to swoop in and catch the brick about to cave your face in. This being an acceptable state or not is irrelevant, this is your situation.
Yeah I suppose my trauma grade first aid kit makes me paranoid right?
Then again I carry a military grade IFAC when I'm out hunting or shooting. Almost like I want to the tools to deal with gun shot wounds on hand in an environment I might take a bullet by accident.
Ah well I'm just a paranoid nutcase, what do I know?
Wait one.....having first aid kits make you paranoid now? Damn
1. I've a medic bag in my Yeti Wrangler Jeep
2. I've a Advance combat lifesaver bag in my Reg Wrangler Jeep
3. I've a Advance Combat Lifesaver bag in my Mistibishi Spyder
4. My IFAK is still on my bdy armor....with the "Needle of extreme confidence" in it.
What idioit said we're paranoid now? Isn't it like Federal Law for us to stop and render assistant if no one suitable is there? Besides I rather arrive on scene with everything I need that I might need.. Including those venom trauma bandages...Isreali bandage....The clotter bondage...torniquiet...IV solutions and set up...you name it I can hanle it from either vehicles. I piss on those bland first aid kits they sell for vehicles.
I am jealous of your kit. I have an Army issue IFAC (very different from the one I had in the Corps) that I added some quick clot combat gauze to on my kit, my medic bag's a standard med kit (civilian type) that I've added the guts of my Corps issue IFAC to, plus gloves, bandages, more gauze, sport tape, cling wrap* and a good quality CPR mask to. Along with more combat gauze. I need to look into some Israeli combat bandages, those things are tits. Grabbing an ACL or two probably wouldn't be a terrible idea either.
*Honest note, I prefer making my own bandages with cling wrap and sterile gauze. Works so much better!
Except I will never use mine to help someone get over a hangover 8). TThe med kits were under the table. Helped a NG unit deactivate while I was at Meade recovering. They had reg CL bags and the advance CL's and a couple medic bags...stocked....no records of them...no documents....no nothing...they were just there....and gone... oh and a roll of 550 cord and some hundred mile hour adhesive tape 8)
In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.
People think the military is blind obidience to orders. Term "I was following orders" des not save you under UCJ. I somewhat remember that incident that the NG troops were used in the weapon confiscation. If I remember correctly it was law enforcement that collected the weapons and forced people to vacate.. Troops were used to provide security and basically haul the the weapons. What got the NG involve was the threat of weapon fires as they conduct their missions be it air or ground. They did not like I said confiscate weapons from civilians...I might be wrong or the info I have is out of date....anyone remember the OP Order for that lol
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
Because it has happened for various values of 'bad' to me and to people I know.
I have had situations where a firearm was THE correct tool for the job, and other occasions where it was a very useful tool though I could have made do without. Not all 'self defense' as in there was a bad guy. A few times it involved something threatening my horses for example. A couple of years ago a cougar took out two cattle less than a mile away from my property. Think I want to wait for the deputy to show up if something like that is mauling my animals? Or worse, threatens my child? The copperhead in the front yard that almost got one of the dogs, well he met Mr. Mossberg. The moccasin that decided to make the area of the pond where my daughter fishes and feeds the ducks his home? He met Mr Mossberg too.
I've also been very happy on a couple of occasions when I had a fire extinguisher and/or a damned good first aid kit. I keep a jack and a spare in each of our vehicles, as well as a flashlight because again, I have been in the situation where they were pretty danged important. When I owned a boat I kept a case of MREs and two 5-gallon jugs of fresh water on board. I once had a battery die at night while out in the ocean fishing and spent several hours drifting. That sucked and could have REALLY sucked.
Years in the military and years living in rural (and city) areas have taught me that it it always better to have and not need than need and not have. If you rely on first responders to PREVENT you being in a bad situation or to save you when they fail to prevent it, you are (in my opinion) an idiot. Self reliance is what every responsible adult should strive for.
See, to me those things aren't the same. I have a jack, first aid kit and flashlight (some of which you are bound by law to have) in my car too, a gun isn't something that belongs on that list for me. Also, since there's next to no guns in this country, crime involving fire arms is extremely low (and crime in general I guess but I don't think that's related to fire arms). Almost all gun related crimes I can recall here have been liquidations in the criminal circuit, which I couldn't give less of a feth about because I'm not in that target group.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I always have 550 cord around, one billion uses and counting.
Rappelling from the ceiling like Charlie Bronson? He's always got some rope.
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.
I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
Because it has happened for various values of 'bad' to me and to people I know.
I have had situations where a firearm was THE correct tool for the job, and other occasions where it was a very useful tool though I could have made do without. Not all 'self defense' as in there was a bad guy. A few times it involved something threatening my horses for example. A couple of years ago a cougar took out two cattle less than a mile away from my property. Think I want to wait for the deputy to show up if something like that is mauling my animals? Or worse, threatens my child? The copperhead in the front yard that almost got one of the dogs, well he met Mr. Mossberg. The moccasin that decided to make the area of the pond where my daughter fishes and feeds the ducks his home? He met Mr Mossberg too.
I've also been very happy on a couple of occasions when I had a fire extinguisher and/or a damned good first aid kit. I keep a jack and a spare in each of our vehicles, as well as a flashlight because again, I have been in the situation where they were pretty danged important. When I owned a boat I kept a case of MREs and two 5-gallon jugs of fresh water on board. I once had a battery die at night while out in the ocean fishing and spent several hours drifting. That sucked and could have REALLY sucked.
Years in the military and years living in rural (and city) areas have taught me that it it always better to have and not need than need and not have. If you rely on first responders to PREVENT you being in a bad situation or to save you when they fail to prevent it, you are (in my opinion) an idiot. Self reliance is what every responsible adult should strive for.
See, to me those things aren't the same. I have a jack, first aid kit and flashlight (some of which you are bound by law to have) in my car too, a gun isn't something that belongs on that list for me. Also, since there's next to no guns in this country, crime involving fire arms is extremely low (and crime in general I guess but I don't think that's related to fire arms). Almost all gun related crimes I can recall here have been liquidations in the criminal circuit, which I couldn't give less of a feth about because I'm not in that target group.
I understand that guns are a lot less common in the Netherlands and your gun crime is pretty minimal, but you also understand that there are a hell of a lot more guns in the US than the Netherlands, right? And that our chances of running into a criminal with a gun are significantly higher? That's one of the big reasons guns are on the list for some of us.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I always have 550 cord around, one billion uses and counting.
Rappelling from the ceiling like Charlie Bronson? He's always got some rope.
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.
I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.
The US government becoming hostile to the general population isn't the only situation in which private citizens might need use of their firearms. And any situation in which the government would become that hostile would be a lot more messy and complicated than just "U.S. government with all of the military vs. armed private citizens." The armed populace would likely be a factor, but it would be one factor among many. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to have an armed populace, however.
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.
I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.
Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.
I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.
Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have access to tanks and planes either. What's stopping the big bad government from carpet bombing away the resistance? Guerrilla warfare isn't a new thing.
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.
I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.
Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have access to tanks and planes either. What's stopping the big bad government from carpet bombing away the resistance? Guerrilla warfare isn't a new thing.
I don't think there are the same number of soldiers in Afghanistan that there is in the US, nor the volume of mechanized resources, accurate intelligence reporting, nor does the US have the type of hostile climate and terrain that Afghanistan does (overall).
Honestly, if you just admitted it was a Red Dawn fantasy, I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and say, "okay then, that's silly but I can't argue with it." But I think it's the disingenuous attempts to rationalize the fantasy that I take issue with.
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
Last month a friend of mine had an intruder on his property. He rents a house on a farm, pretty removed from everything.
He called the police as soon as he realized that this guy was inside of his garage, and then grabbed one of his shotguns. Eventually the person realized that someone was home, and hauled ass out of there. Cops showed up 15 minutes later.
This was a best case situation. In that 15 minutes though, so many things could have happened. Just because he had a gun (he's got about 12) he didn't go storming out there waving it around and popping shots off, a'la Joe Biden. He called the police, he armed himself to ensure his protection, and he stayed put. Had that person shown any intent of doing him harm, he would have been prepared, where others would have just been victims.
Soladrin wrote: Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\
I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.
Because it has happened for various values of 'bad' to me and to people I know.
I have had situations where a firearm was THE correct tool for the job, and other occasions where it was a very useful tool though I could have made do without. Not all 'self defense' as in there was a bad guy. A few times it involved something threatening my horses for example. A couple of years ago a cougar took out two cattle less than a mile away from my property. Think I want to wait for the deputy to show up if something like that is mauling my animals? Or worse, threatens my child? The copperhead in the front yard that almost got one of the dogs, well he met Mr. Mossberg. The moccasin that decided to make the area of the pond where my daughter fishes and feeds the ducks his home? He met Mr Mossberg too.
I've also been very happy on a couple of occasions when I had a fire extinguisher and/or a damned good first aid kit. I keep a jack and a spare in each of our vehicles, as well as a flashlight because again, I have been in the situation where they were pretty danged important. When I owned a boat I kept a case of MREs and two 5-gallon jugs of fresh water on board. I once had a battery die at night while out in the ocean fishing and spent several hours drifting. That sucked and could have REALLY sucked.
Years in the military and years living in rural (and city) areas have taught me that it it always better to have and not need than need and not have. If you rely on first responders to PREVENT you being in a bad situation or to save you when they fail to prevent it, you are (in my opinion) an idiot. Self reliance is what every responsible adult should strive for.
See, to me those things aren't the same. I have a jack, first aid kit and flashlight (some of which you are bound by law to have) in my car too, a gun isn't something that belongs on that list for me. Also, since there's next to no guns in this country, crime involving fire arms is extremely low (and crime in general I guess but I don't think that's related to fire arms). Almost all gun related crimes I can recall here have been liquidations in the criminal circuit, which I couldn't give less of a feth about because I'm not in that target group.
I understand that guns are a lot less common in the Netherlands and your gun crime is pretty minimal, but you also understand that there are a hell of a lot more guns in the US than the Netherlands, right? And that our chances of running into a criminal with a gun are significantly higher? That's one of the big reasons guns are on the list for some of us.
Obviously I understand that but that actually seems to be the problem in itself. It's a case of I need acces to guns because others have acces to guns. Obviously taking guns out of America at this point is impossible but to me it seems to be a bit of a self made problem.
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.
I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.
Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.
You'd actually have to take into account whole units siding with the People, as I know my oath, and any order to fire on US civilians is pretty much an unlawful one... so in essence, you'd have army fighting marines, army fighting army, etc. as you know there are less than scrupulous commanders out there who, if you listen to certain media outlets are siding with the "Man" and would have no problem breaking oath and shooting civvies.
I understand that guns are a lot less common in the Netherlands and your gun crime is pretty minimal, but you also understand that there are a hell of a lot more guns in the US than the Netherlands, right? And that our chances of running into a criminal with a gun are significantly higher? That's one of the big reasons guns are on the list for some of us.
This is one of those arguments I find silly to be honest. A perp with a knife, length of pipe, rusty screw driver, brass knuckles, or what ever is dangerous. In places like the UK gun violence is low, but violent crime isn't. If the meth addled scum bag with a knife feels entitled to my wallet and watch, I want the capability to end his life with out having to get cut up badly in the process. If I am at the point where I feel the need to use force, I want the most force I can have. Frankly that greatly decreases the chance I get badly injured. More importantly to me, I want my 5'4" 130 pound wife to be able to handle a 6' 200 pound perp regardless of how he is armed, or even if he is unarmed. A violent criminal is a violent criminal, gun or not. A gun in a good person's hand can stop that violent criminal.
It doesn't take a high crime rate for one perp to bash your head in and take your wallet... You may be one of a small number of victims. That doesn't repair a crushed in head.
Speaking of registrations and government seizing guns:
California governor signs bill to speed up gun seizures
Published May 02, 2013
Associated Press
June 30, 2011: California Gov. Jerry Brown signs the state budget. (AP)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Jerry Brown announced Wednesday that he has signed legislation expanding the ability of state agents to seize firearms from nearly 20,000 Californians who are not allowed to have them.
They collectively own more than 39,000 handguns and 1,670 assault weapons but are prohibited from owning firearms because they have been convicted of crimes, ruled mentally unstable or are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program. The money will go to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.
The program, which is unique to California, cross-checks five databases to find people who bought weapons they are no longer legally allowed to own.
SB140 by Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authorizes $24 million to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.
The bill is the first of numerous firearms bills introduced by lawmakers in response to recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado. The Democratic governor signed the bill without comment.
"California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety," Attorney General Kamala Harris, who oversees the state Department of Justice, said in a statement.
U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat from St. Helena, introduced HR848 earlier this year to create a U.S. Department of Justice grant program for states that want to develop similar programs
(CNN) - Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania blamed political polarization for the failure of last month's background check compromise he reached with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, saying some in his party simply voted against the measure to prevent the president from winning a legislative victory.
"In the end, it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey said.
"The toughest thing to do in politics is to do the right thing when your supporters think the right thing is something else," he added.
His comments came in an interview Tuesday with a roundtable of Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pennsylvania.
According to the editors at the meeting, Toomey clarified his comment, saying he meant to say Republicans in general, not just his GOP colleagues in the Senate.
Toomey was one of four Republicans who voted on a measure to expand the background check system so that it covers private sales at gun shows and online. Five Democrats voted against the proposal (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted no so he could bring the bill back up later).
In a 54-46 vote, the measure failed to reach the 60 votes needed to move forward in the Senate. Along with the background checks legislation, a ban on assault weapons also went down in defeat.
President Barack Obama said Tuesday in a news conference that he suspected there were Republican members in Congress who vote against their instincts for political purposes.
"Their base thinks that compromise with me is somehow a betrayal. They're worried about primaries. And I understand all that. And we're going to try to do everything we can to create a permission structure for them to be able to do what's going to be best for the country," he said. "But it's going to take some time."
The president and gun control advocates chided lawmakers for failing to pass the proposal, the only one that had a real shot of passing among the slew of gun proposals brought forward in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.
While Obama, Reid and gun control groups have vowed to keep up the pressure and bring the legislation back for a vote down the road, Toomey expressed doubt that a second vote will happen soon.
"Reid could bring it up for a vote at any time, but we need five people to change their minds," Toomey said.
"It's a pretty heavy lift to get five senators to change their mind on a big issue like this," he added. "It's not likely to happen any time soon. I hope people will reconsider over time."
His comments sounded less enthusiastic compared with those made by Manchin. The senator from West Virginia said Sunday he believes the measure is still alive and together they can persuade enough lawmakers to support it.
"I truly believe if we have time to sell the bill, and people read the bill," it will gain support, Manchin said. "I'm willing to go anywhere in this country, I'm going to debate anybody on this issue, read the bill and you tell me what you don't like."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Speaking of registrations and government seizing guns:
California governor signs bill to speed up gun seizures
Published May 02, 2013
Associated Press
June 30, 2011: California Gov. Jerry Brown signs the state budget. (AP)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Jerry Brown announced Wednesday that he has signed legislation expanding the ability of state agents to seize firearms from nearly 20,000 Californians who are not allowed to have them.
They collectively own more than 39,000 handguns and 1,670 assault weapons but are prohibited from owning firearms because they have been convicted of crimes, ruled mentally unstable or are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program. The money will go to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.
The program, which is unique to California, cross-checks five databases to find people who bought weapons they are no longer legally allowed to own.
SB140 by Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authorizes $24 million to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.
The bill is the first of numerous firearms bills introduced by lawmakers in response to recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado. The Democratic governor signed the bill without comment.
"California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety," Attorney General Kamala Harris, who oversees the state Department of Justice, said in a statement.
U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat from St. Helena, introduced HR848 earlier this year to create a U.S. Department of Justice grant program for states that want to develop similar programs
For feths sake. One day you are complaining about the government not enforcing the laws on the books, and then another you are complaining when they do. It's like watching a wiender dog chase his tail...
Soladrin wrote: I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.
So if you visited 'MURICA to see Alfndrate, we couldn't go shooting? Is it because I won't let you try a 360 no scope?
What I meant by that is. I will never go out of my way to get to shooting gallery or something. If I were visiting you (when hell freezes over and pigs fly) then yeah, I'd probably have a go. Point is, I don't see any reason to ever want to go to America.
Soladrin wrote: I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.
So if you visited 'MURICA to see Alfndrate, we couldn't go shooting? Is it because I won't let you try a 360 no scope?
What I meant by that is. I will never go out of my way to get to shooting gallery or something. If I were visiting you (when hell freezes over and pigs fly) then yeah, I'd probably have a go. Point is, I don't see any reason to ever want to go to America.
Soladrin wrote: I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.
So if you visited 'MURICA to see Alfndrate, we couldn't go shooting? Is it because I won't let you try a 360 no scope?
What I meant by that is. I will never go out of my way to get to shooting gallery or something. If I were visiting you (when hell freezes over and pigs fly) then yeah, I'd probably have a go. Point is, I don't see any reason to ever want to go to America.
Don't worry, the feeling is more than mutual. Ye know not of the Holy Queso and the Holy Drink of Tequila, and therefor unworthy.
Part of the risk assessment process is not only assigning probability of the event but assigning the level of effect if the event occurs. A 'catastrophic' result to a rare event may very well dictate some mitigation effort.
You see the risk assessment matrix and think "unlikely event, no reason for mitigation".
I see it and think "perhaps unlikely but catastrophic results if it does" and decide some mitigation is worth while. Different approaches to the same problem. The difference ends up being what happens IF the event occurs...
Yeah, but my point is that IF is a lot smaller for me. It also helps that our cops appear to be a lot more attentive, and before you start talking distance, I grew up on the border of Belgium with every police station being at least 20-30minutes away. Cops never took more then 2-3 mins to get there in my experience.
Are you any safer owning an assault rifle over a semi-automatic pistol?
How deadly a weapon should the line be drawn on what the public can't own but law enforcement/armed forces can?
I find it all fascinating. And I type this as a British fella who's never so much as held a gun, let alone owned one. They're interesting things, but I don't have any desire to have one in my house or indeed my life.
Non-Brits often find it odd that even the vast majority of our police constables aren't armed, only specialist response units. I rather like that. We have very little gun crime and not a lot of knife-based violence all things considered.
I'd certainly support being able to carry a sword around, mind you. And I do own two rather tasty recurve bows. I'd happily defend my property with one of those. An Englishman's home is his castle, they say! Come at me, dear boy, and I shall fill ye full of feathered shafts. In the non gay way...
(Though given a firing range and a SAW, I would like to open 'er up... in bursts, obviously. This isn't the movies... )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:Years in the military and years living in rural (and city) areas have taught me that it it always better to have and not need than need and not have. If you rely on first responders to PREVENT you being in a bad situation or to save you when they fail to prevent it, you are (in my opinion) an idiot. Self reliance is what every responsible adult should strive for.
You know, this is not only one of the smartest summations I've ever heard from an American (in the sense of someone with direct contact with guns, rather than the 'they're daft as a brush' stereotype, but one of the most concise points from anyone.
Miraclefish wrote: Are you any safer owning an assault rifle over a semi-automatic pistol?
Since its illegal for civilians to own assaulot rifles without a very stringent licensing process the question is moot.
How deadly a weapon should the line be drawn on what the public can't own but law enforcement/armed forces can?
Why should law enforcement have deadlier weapons then citizens? The military already has that. WE can't own tanks, ships, and Vought F4U Corsairs with napalm, sadly.
I find it all fascinating. And I type this as a British fella who's never so much as held a gun, let alone owned one. They're interesting things, but I don't have any desire to have one in my house or indeed my life.
So you have what we like to call 'no point of reference whatsover.' Gotcha.
Non-Brits often find it odd that even the vast majority of our police constables aren't armed, only specialist response units. I rather like that. We have very little gun crime and not a lot of knife-based violence all things considered.
Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.
I'd certainly support being able to carry a sword around, mind you. And I do own two rather tasty recurve bows. I'd happily defend my property with one of those. An Englishman's home is his castle, they say! Come at me, dear boy, and I shall fill ye full of feathered shafts. In the non gay way...
A home invasion would exterminate your arrow chunking ass. Sorry.
Yes, in some parts it is common for people to give 5 years olds fully functioning guns.
Not the first case, unfortunately. The parents must be devastated. Will the parents be prosecuted for some kind of negligence in this case? I got nothing about that from the article. I'm not saying that it's necessary punishment since they already lost a 2-year old daughter, but the questions interests me.
Miraclefish wrote: Are you any safer owning an assault rifle over a semi-automatic pistol?
Since its illegal for civilians to own assaulot rifles without a very stringent licensing process the question is moot.
How deadly a weapon should the line be drawn on what the public can't own but law enforcement/armed forces can?
Why should law enforcement have deadlier weapons then citizens? The military already has that. WE can't own tanks, ships, and Vought F4U Corsairs with napalm, sadly.
I find it all fascinating. And I type this as a British fella who's never so much as held a gun, let alone owned one. They're interesting things, but I don't have any desire to have one in my house or indeed my life.
So you have what we like to call 'no point of reference whatsover.' Gotcha.
Non-Brits often find it odd that even the vast majority of our police constables aren't armed, only specialist response units. I rather like that. We have very little gun crime and not a lot of knife-based violence all things considered.
Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.
I'd certainly support being able to carry a sword around, mind you. And I do own two rather tasty recurve bows. I'd happily defend my property with one of those. An Englishman's home is his castle, they say! Come at me, dear boy, and I shall fill ye full of feathered shafts. In the non gay way...
A home invasion would exterminate your arrow chunking ass. Sorry.
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
And you always bring up the "Cartel country" line... could you specify exactly what your belief of your own potential interactions with cartel violence would be, and what your reaction to it would likely be?
Also, for what it's worth, you really should reconsider both the speed and stopping power of a recurve bow.
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
Why do I want them more armed than the citizenry they work for. To use the British analogy. Bobbies (thats the term right) are not generally armed except for sticks right? Thats because the citizenry is also not armed except with sticks (and the occasional battleaxe). Cool. Then you go to your average dictatorship where the citizenry have nothing but the "police" are armed with fully automatic weaponry. No thanks.
And you always bring up the "Cartel country" line... could you specify exactly what your belief of your own potential interactions with cartel violence would be, and what your reaction to it would likely be?
Wait you claim to know much about the USA but don't know about the cartels? Now I'm confused.
Also, for what it's worth, you really should reconsider both the speed and stopping power of a recurve bow.
Wait, what seriously? Dude there's a reason the Sioux shot up Custer with guns and not...bows.
Bad Guy at door. Azazel gets up. Bad Guy in house. Azazel goes to closet to get bow. Bad Guy hits Azazel with brick Later in hospital Azazel ponders, if only he had a brace of full auto wiener dogs or at least a nice maple donut.
Meanwhile at the Hall of Justice. Bad Guy at door. Frazzled opens the PLEASE LET THERE BE A ZOMBIEPOCALYPSE box and sounds the Horn of Summoning. Ten million wiener dogs eat Bad Guy. Much later, TBone finally makes it over (he's slow) and pees on whats left. Then he barks.
Frazzled, the average UK contable doesn't carry a firearm, but the police do have special response units who do, who can (obviously) severely out-gun a generally gun-free populace.
I think you need to recognize that whatever firearms are obtainable by upstanding citizens like yourself, are also obtainable by less-than-upstanding citizens. So do you really want a situation like from North Hollywood?
Now, you're ducking my question here. I asked what your belief is. Exactly what do you think your interactions with cartel violence, should it come to pass, would look like?
And if you meant that several tiny dogs will protect you from a home invasion, then that's fine. I was assuming you were trying to imply that somehow a recurve bow would be absolutely useless by contrast to a firearm, of which the latter would certainly be more tactically useful, though the former is not without its merits.
CptJake wrote: Guess that is why all the bad guys of the world as well as all the militaries have armed themselves with recurve bows
Contrary to Rambo movies, they also make a very loud Kthwap sound.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Frazzled, the average UK contable doesn't carry a firearm, but the police do have special response units who do, who can (obviously) severely out-gun a generally gun-free populace.
I think you need to recognize that whatever firearms are obtainable by upstanding citizens like yourself, are also obtainable by less-than-upstanding citizens. So do you really want a situation like from North Hollywood?
There is no reason for police to be better armed then the citizenry. North Hollwyood - guess what, the police weren't worse armed. The BG's had body armor. I don't know about current laws as I don't play a taticool mall ninja, but that used to be illegal.
Now, you're ducking my question here. I asked what your belief is. Exactly what do you think your interactions with cartel violence, should it come to pass, would look like?
And if you meant that several tiny dogs will protect you from a home invasion, then that's fine. I was assuming you were trying to imply that somehow a recurve bow would be absolutely useless by contrast to a firearm, of which the latter would certainly be more tactically useful, though the former is not without its merits.
1. Tiny? I'll have you know Rodney the Shanker is all of 16 lbs now, fatty fatty. Rusty is 82lb of course. 2. Nah didn't imply firearms although, yea you wouldn't stand a chance in that instance either. But thats way better than being eaten alive by rampaging BADGER DOGS
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
As someone who grew up in the deep south, I have to ask "Who says they AREN'T the dastardly criminal types?!" (Though, this does bring up an interesting devil`s advocate point: Sometimes they should be outgunned.)
On a more serious note, why are the firearms deemed "acceptable" for me to defend my life with suddenly inadequate for the guys who generally ARE NOT the first ones to get attacked by <Insert nutbar here>, arrive with backup, and are generally wearing something more bullet resistant than a T-shirt in their daily activities? Legally speaking, our policemen are not military, and as far as I am concerned they can "do more with less" just like the rest of us.
azazel the cat wrote: Frazzled, the average UK contable doesn't carry a firearm, but the police do have special response units who do, who can (obviously) severely out-gun a generally gun-free populace.
I think you need to recognize that whatever firearms are obtainable by upstanding citizens like yourself, are also obtainable by less-than-upstanding citizens. So do you really want a situation like from North Hollywood?
There is no reason for police to be better armed then the citizenry.
North Hollwyood - guess what, the police weren't worse armed. The BG's had body armor. I don't know about current laws as I don't play a taticool mall ninja, but that used to be illegal.
Am I remembering something else, then? I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs, because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
Frazzled wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Now, you're ducking my question here. I asked what your belief is. Exactly what do you think your interactions with cartel violence, should it come to pass, would look like?
Right. Now that we've got your belief as to what your possible interactions with cartel violence would look like, and in using the article you linked as an example, how exactly is the outcome going to change if you have a gun?
My point, now that I can get to it, is that whether or not you're carrying a firearm seems to have very little bearing on the situation you've provided. This is what I'm talking about when I say that it seems like it's mostly just an action-movie-inspired fantasy that causes you to carry a firearm when you use "borders on Cartel country" as your excuse. Now, if you said "I carry a full-bore Taurus Judge because I live in rattlesnake country" or even "I live in a rural area and the nearest police station is 20 mins away" I would likely just nod and say "makes sense". But that's not the reason you provide: you appear to be implying that you're going to be the last man standing after a gunfight with the cartels.
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
It's also important to point out that, contrary to Hollywood movies, patrol cars are not armored in any way.
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
What's special is that my point was that the police, with their handguns, were outgunned.
Look at the LAPD higher ups on that one. Not issuing your officers a rifle has never been a good idea IMO.
I will also point out, that they ceased being outgunned when they went to a local gun shop and removed rifles from the shelves (As in, the AR-15s they sold to most folks. Until CA promptly banned them, changing nothing but the list of felonies you can unwittingly commit in CA.)
SOFDC wrote:Look at the LAPD higher ups on that one. Not issuing your officers a rifle has never been a good idea IMO.
I will also point out, that they ceased being outgunned when they went to a local gun shop and removed rifles from the shelves (As in, the AR-15s they sold to most folks. Until CA promptly banned them, changing nothing but the list of felonies you can unwittingly commit in CA.)
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I'll refer you to my discussion with Frazzled re: cops being outgunned to place my end of things in context.
Well.....since the M16A2 is being phased out to the M4.....think the officer can upgrade the vehicle loadout with a shotgun alongside of it. There is a program emplace for that. Granted the A2 is capable of a "burst" round...3 round burst....is not fully automatic....just recently didn't some county/state let their LEO's bring their personnel AR's on their patrols?
Frazzled wrote:Why should law enforcement have deadlier weapons then citizens? The military already has that. WE can't own tanks, ships, and Vought F4U Corsairs with napalm, sadly.
Surely the entire point of the deterrent of police service is that they are better equipped and better armed than the general population? They certainly don't outnumber them, so that's the only advantage they have.
Frazzled wrote:So you have what we like to call 'no point of reference whatsover.' Gotcha.
Well that's why I asked, I wanted some opinions from those who live in the situation.
Frazzled wrote:Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.
Except that they aren't.
Murders committed per annum:
139 per 100,000 people (UK) vs 8,226 per 100,000 (US). 58x more in the USA.
Murders with guns per annum:
14 per 100,000 (UK) and 9,369 per 100,000 (US). 668x more in the USA.
Source: World Health Organisation.
And you may have 'cartel country', but we have open immigration to Eastern Europe and countless countries just as inventively violent and nasty as Latin America...
Frazzled wrote:A home invasion would exterminate your arrow chunking ass. Sorry.
Not if the most you can expect people to be armed with is a knife or, very rarely, a handgun.... the lower the level of weapons generally available, the lower the level you need to defend yourself....no?
Miraclefish wrote: Surely the entire point of the deterrent of police service is that they are better equipped and better armed than the general population? They certainly don't outnumber them, so that's the only advantage they have.
Wrong, the deterrence is their presence. Obviously a crap ton of crime gets committed regardless of how any particular county or municipality equips their LEOs. A lot less crime occurs where those LEOs are physically located or known to frequently patrol.
Also, you may want to relook your crime statistics. I find it hard that gun murders outnumber total murders... Seems wrong that a subset outnumbers the whole. More importantly, you failed to address assaults, which Frazz specifically brought up. Less guns = less gun crime. Got it. Less guns does NOT necessarily equal less violent crime. For example, your rape and assault rates are higher than in the US according to:
CptJake wrote:Also, you may want to relook your crime statistics. I find it hard that gun murders outnumber total murders... Seems wrong that a subset outnumbers the whole. /quote]
They don't, there are 14 gun murders in every 139 overall murders.
Assault the WHO didn't have figures on.
That link, yes, you're right, we have more assaults than the USA.
Also, brilliantly, we clearly love the drugs. 180k drug uses per 100k people, vs 500 per 100k in the USA....
They don't, there are 14 gun murders in every 139 overall murders.
Wrong, they do.
8,226 per 100,000 (US) total murders < than Murders with guns per annum: 9,369 per 100,000 (US). Unless in the UK 8,226 is more than 9,369. The answer is, your label on the 8,226 number is wrong
That wasn't users, it was offences. Meaning you guys must have some serious revolving door issues with that to bust people several times a year.
Edit: Actually, those numbers gotta be way off. There was only something to the scale of 300,000 drug seizures in the UK at their peak in 2008/2009. Another 140,000ish cannabis warning.
I don't think that comes close to accounting for nearly 2:1 ratio of drugs to people in the UK.
Well that's why I asked, I wanted some opinions from those who live in the situation.
Frazzled wrote:Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.
Except that they aren't.
Murders committed per annum:
139 per 100,000 people (UK) vs 8,226 per 100,000 (US). 58x more in the USA.
Murders with guns per annum:
14 per 100,000 (UK) and 9,369 per 100,000 (US). 668x more in the USA.
Source: World Health Organization.
You're completely and utterly wrong, those are totals maybe but not per 100,000 people. Cause that would mean there were 2467000 murders committed in the United States annually. Considering the average number has been more like 11,000 total, with 9000 of those being gun murders on average per the FBI for the last couple years...yeah no.
Frazzled, why do you want your police officers to be in a situation where they can be potentially out-gunned through sheer force by those dastardly criminal types?
As someone who grew up in the deep south, I have to ask "Who says they AREN'T the dastardly criminal types?!" (Though, this does bring up an interesting devil`s advocate point: Sometimes they should be outgunned.)
On a more serious note, why are the firearms deemed "acceptable" for me to defend my life with suddenly inadequate for the guys who generally ARE NOT the first ones to get attacked by <Insert nutbar here>, arrive with backup, and are generally wearing something more bullet resistant than a T-shirt in their daily activities? Legally speaking, our policemen are not military, and as far as I am concerned they can "do more with less" just like the rest of us.
What he said (I think).
After all, its only relatively recently that the legal concept of self defense against police was dropped in Texas. After all, when the police have had a history of being members of the KKK (or the mob in the North), this concept is not at all outlandish.
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
Again what he said. Only TV cops hide just behind a car. Azazel, are you a TV cop? It explains a lot. On the positive are you the 'always ready with a quick one liner' police cop, the "hard case with a heart of gold' type or my favorite 'the bride taking evil nightmare' police cop?
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
It's also important to point out that, contrary to Hollywood movies, patrol cars are not armored in any way.
Well, if you pack enough empty donut boxes in there...
I thought the BGs also had semi-auto AK knockoffs,
Illegally converted to full auto, with a 50/50 chance of being obtained by a felon in the first place (Or by a non-felon FOR a felon, also a felony), along with the whole body armor thing that was either purchased illegally or, as above, purchased by a non felon for a felon (Again, also a felony.)
because I seem to recall an officer taking cover and being shot through the wheel well of his squad car.
What's special about this exactly? It's a rifle. Not a very big one, as rifles go, but still a rifle.
What's special is that my point was that the police, with their handguns, were outgunned.
They weren't. They also had shotguns.
The ones that rousted us usually had shotguns and AR-15s. (not M4s, thisis a bit older than that). That was years ago. Now the police have been much more militarized. Live in a less good area and you're almost under military occupation. We sure were. Every bohunk popo has a SWAT unit to execute simple arrests. DHS literally has thousands of armored vehicles in the US...somewhere...
When I've had to call 9/11 before; and it reliably takes them 25 minutes to get here best case.
oh and a roll of 550 cord and some hundred mile hour adhesive tape 8)
