AMERICANS and SELF-DEFENSE

[Skarek]

I think I just came to a realization. A realization that I will never really understand the American opinion on guns. Only because it is a so deeply rooted right, a right that is hard to explain why it is an obvious right...

Let me make an example from my own life (as this is what I understand). In Sweden (and some other countries) we have something called "Everyman's right" (Allemansrätten). This gives everyone the right to access, walk and stay on all public and private land on the premises of "Do not disturb, do not destroy". You are allowed to pick berries (not if they are farmed) and mushrooms, collect dead wood for fires and camp even if it is private land. There are just some rules about disturbing, so you can not camp in someones garden. You are not allowed to hunt.

This is an obvious right for me, but I can understand that some people might think it strange than everyone have access to their land and can collect "their" berries. I guess my inability to explain why "Everyman's right" is the only reasonable way of having it is the as with the guns. It is jsut the way is, it has always been that way and there are no other way without removing a fundamental part of life...

So maybe I'll just give up my tries to understand this... Some interesting points has been made and it all made me think and I think I reached a conclusion.

I guess the only thing worth discussion is really trigger happiness and where to draw lines between right and wrong. Both philosophical questions that can be debated for ever and always ends up in compromises...

[Woody Williams]

Skarek,

If someone came walking thorugh my backyard I would sure question and ask him what he was doing. I owuld then ask him to leave

If someone was kicking in my back door trying to get in then I would assume that he would do harm to me and my family. I would not allow that to happen even if it meant killing the intruder. Killing someone is not to be taken lightly....but no one will cause bodily harm to my family.

The court case" that you posted about was silly. It appears that the court used the "was mentally ill" to actually get around a law. The man woudl have been 100% in his rights to defend his family if he lived here. No need for a phoney "mentlally ill " defense. If a group of teenagers had been harassing my family and showed up with bats and pipes and tried to gain entry, someone would die and it wouldn't be me or my family.

[kitty kat]

I as a Canadian would be ready to defend my home, family and way of life and those around me. Just to defend your own and let your neighbour suffer is not right either. I would only plan on using deadly force as the last resort. If you can't negotioate with me and reasoning the next option is someone is going to get hurt and if that be me at least I will have gone down trying. I was raised to understand the reason to use guns and the price that I may have to endure if I do to go that route. When our governments are trying to take our guns and ammunition away from us I really get nervous. We must stick together and support each other in our beliefs of freedom and if that includes some using guns as a final answer than so be it. Make sure we use our wisdom as best as we can.

[Skarek]

Skarek,
The court case" that you posted about was silly.

That was my thought to. I was certain that he would walk free, but that would say that the government had failed to handle a situation that had gone out of hand. It seemed that they couldn't really accept it, so they found a strange way out without discussing what actually happened. I think our system fears more than anything to show that lethal violence can be accepted in a situation.

[Grizzly Adam]

Skarek, let me preface my further remarks by saying that I offer the following in good will and in the spirit that characterizes discussion on this forum.

I want you to know that I have only limited time to devote to such discussions as this. I appear on the forum frequently, but that's because I check in from time to time as I attend to my daily working tasks at the computer. For the most part, my responsibilities preclude such lengthy and detailed discussions as this. I'm sorry that's the case, but I have to be a good steward of my time.

So ... I'm not "blowing you off" (as we Americans would say) by failing to post a long response. I don't intend to ignore you, but I cannot devote much more time to this than I already have.

There's not really that much more that I could say in defining my position.

As an American:

I believe in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that governmental regulation of that right should be strictly limited.

I further believe that the anvil against which this discussion hammers may well be a native difference of opinion about respecting the sovereignty of nations.

Concerning the discussion at hand:

I believe that you Swedes have every right to make your own decisions concerning the existence of, possession of and use of firearms or any weapon. I believe that is your affair, and is none of the business of other countries, unless you are acting as an aggressor against them. I have no desire to intrude into your consideration of such issues, to criticize or condemn your decisions concerning them, or to try to control those decisions. I believe it is no business of mine what you Swedes do about firearms or other weapons in your nation, unless you use them to threaten other countries. It's up to Swedes to determine such things.

Because I believe so strongly that other nations should decide their own affairs, I also believe that those nations should allow us to determine our own affairs.

So (and I mean no insult or disrespect in saying so), I'm really not all that interested in discussing what Swedes or other Europeans think of our American decisions concerning the ownership and use of firearms within the borders of our own country.

As for your specified questions:

What is worse, an innocent person sentenced or a criminal walking free?

I think both are reprehensible situations that should be avoided at all costs in any free and just society.

What are the use of a full automatic in civilian life?

The use of a full automatic in civilian life is whatever use that civilian decides to put it to within the bounds of the law that civilian is subject to.

As an American, I find the idea that I should have to justify my possession of a weapon entirely objectionable.

What does it give that a semi automatic does not?

Isn't that obvious? I'm not being flip here: A full automatic gives a faster rate of fire than does a semi-automatic.

Isn’t the guns that you wish to protect yourself against often legal or have been legal?

Perhaps. If they were, the point is moot. When I would wish to defend myself against their use, the action of the aggressor would be illegal. I believe such a question misses the point of self defense entirely.

Do you believe that you in all situations are suitable to handle a gun and in a mental state that you can take the correct decision if to use it?

I do. I have not made any statements lightly.

In what situations is deadly force justified?

When a citizen believes that they are in danger of death or great harm.

Do you believe that a lot of shootings are based on misunderstandings or saved someone from injury?

No, I do not believe that many shootings are based on misunderstandings. No doubt the occasional one is. That does not change the main emphasis of shooting in self-defense, in which case I believe in two types of shootings: Evil shootings, and shootings that defend against evil.

As concerns the saving of lives, I know that many shootings save innocents from the predatory acts of aggressors. The mere presence of a firearm often prevents violence.

How miserably do you think I managed to fail to deliver my actual concerns about the concept guns for the sole purpose of self defence?

No problems here.

I hope that others might do more to contribute to your search for understanding, Skarek.

Again, everything I have said is offered in good will and with good faith, in an honest attempt to help you understand my convictions.

Now ... I've got a lot of work to do!

[Mike P]

Wow, is this deja vu! I have been having this very discussion for the last couple of weeks. Skarek, I just returned from Pitea, and as you know, that is north of where you live. I have been to your city Umea on two occasions. My wife in fact is a graduate of Umea University. When I visit your country I am confronted with your arguments regarding guns and the American justice system on a daily basis. I just wrote a small post about this last night. Did you happen to read it? And as I was born and raised in Texas you can only imagine how this might fuel the fire of these discussions.

You are wise to point out that language difficulties must always be considered when having discussions with anyone who is not having the discussion in their native tongue. So many things can be misconstrued and cause offense when none was intended. This has been my world for the past forty years. And trust me Skarek, your understanding and presentation of the English language far surpasses that of my wife. One could even make a case that your grasp of the language is even superior to some Americans who inhabit our southern states. (Sorry, I just can never pass up a chance to take a shot at grizz and shucks.)

Even after forty years of listening to her butchered English and my equal attempts at Texas Swedish, we still at times fail to convey to each other what we are trying to say. A lot of the older married guys here are saying "hey, that's no language barrier, that's just marriage." And of course they are right. But try and imagine having these discussions in two different languages. In the early years of our marriage when we would reach a stalemate in our discussions we would revert to gestures, most of them obscene. These we both clearly understood! Thankfully we have both grown beyond these childish tactics. And besides, I never do it now when she can see me.

I feel I am in a unique position to comment about this thread. Not only have I experienced both sides of this argument, I live it every day. And as I said in my post "The Eyes of the Beholder" there are vastly different perceptions and cultures at play here.

Skarek, I must tell you that the media in Sweden does not paint an entirely correct picture of life in the United States. It is slanted and over emphasizes the subject of violence. Heck, even our own media here in the states does the same. It sells papers and increases television ratings. I am also convinced that the government in your country, while liberal as compared to many European governments, is still very controlling regarding the possession of firearms, be they hand guns or long guns. That could never happen in the states. The citizens will not accept this. It is in our founding constitution that we have "the right to own and bear arms."

Grizz, Skarek is just like most all the people of Sweden. Did you notice how careful he has been with his posts on this subject trying to explain his position without offending anyone? I find this to be true of most all Swedes. They are a very genuine and loving people. OK, they do go a bit overboard on the loving part, but hey, they have taken the old hippie chant "make love not war" to an entirely new level. The children of Sweden are indoctrinated at a very early age into the beliefs of their parents just as the children of the states. We are "hardwired" with these beliefs.

One must also pay attention to the difference of scale. The United States is huge. Sweden is so very small. Trust me; we do not face the same conditions as we pursue our path through life. Skarek was perceptive to realize this fact could impact his argument.

True to my roots and my indoctrination into my culture by my parents, I am a red necked, gun toting cowboy. I believe the best government is one that stays out of my way. So of course I not only stand behind the "castle" theory of defending ones self with grizz, I am the guy who would fly to Texas to watch those public hangings if they were ever brought back!

Skarek, you will never understand how the citizens of the United States feel about gun ownership and the right to defend ones castle. And Grizz will never understand how Skarek feels about gun violence when a human is killed. It is the culture guys. It is the hardwire.

It is my dearest hope that the culture of Sweden remains the same, and this includes the way they perceive violence and gun control. For these people in that country it is a very good system. It really works for them. But I fear it is going to change. Sweden is going to face more challenges in the future and it will come from the Muslim world. Extremism has already reared its ugly head in Malmo. How this is going to impact their laws regarding gun ownership has yet to be determined. I hope it does not but I fear they may become more stringent.

It is also my dearest hope that the laws of the United States do not change. Unfortunately from my side of the fence I fear they may. If you as hunters have not detected the scent in the air these days regarding the current administrations views on this subject your sniffer is plugged up.

And finally, I know one thing for certain. There is no doubt in my mind that a citizen of the United States and a citizen of Sweden can have a discussion regarding this subject and still smile at each other when the discussion reaches stalemate. Our cultures have that in common. And that is something that we both should cherish.

And now if you will forgive me, I have to find that blond bleeding heart liberal wife of mine and give her an obscene gesture while she is not looking.

It is not my fault. My culture makes me do it.

[Grizzly Adam]

And trust me Skarek, your understanding and presentation of the English language far surpasses that of my wife. One could even make a case that your grasp of the language is even superior to some Americans who inhabit our southern states. (Sorry, I just can never pass up a chance to take a shot at grizz and shucks.)

Hey, c'mon, Mike! Give me a break here.

English is my second language too! I grew up speaking redneck.

[Grizzly Adam]

And finally, I know one thing for certain. There is no doubt in my mind that a citizen of the United States and a citizen of Sweden can have a discussion regarding this subject and still smile at each other when the discussion reaches stalemate. Our cultures have that in common. And that is something that we both should cherish.

I agree, Mike ... and I think we've been doing that. It's not just the forum; I think this discussion with Skarek has been commendably civil on both sides, considering the potential for heated comments!

Of course, if there were obscene emoticons, who knows what we'd see from you Texans?

And I agree that we are talking APPLES and ORANGES by comparing American and Swedish situations and interests, and that we are discussing TWO FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERING IDEOLOGIES when it comes to the possession and use of firearms.

No problem there for me, so long as other nations don't try to control our own possession and use of them.

I too think Skarek has comported himself admirably in this discussion.

As for mutual understanding, I make no pretense of understanding the Swedish mindset. I'm not from there; I know nothing of them save such information as is factually available (as in encyclopedias). The closest I come to actually knowing any Swedes is my interactions with Skarek and my familiarity with your wife through you posts!

You're probably right. I won't ever truly understand where Skarek is coming from. I probably can't. And vice-versa.

At least we're trying!

Back to work! LOL

[Apple_Orchard]

An armed citizenry is a peaceful citizenry. Nuff said.

[Huntz]

To the gentleman from Sweden.Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with having guns for hunting.Its main purpose it to protect us against a Goverment run amuck.Secondary is personal protection and protection of property from criminals.Hunting is a right not a permission.I think most Canadians feel the same as we are true cousins.Huntz

[sumner4991]

[quote="Skarek
1.What is worse, an innocent person sentenced or a criminal walking free?

2.What are the use of a full automatic in civilian life? What does it give that a semi automatic does not?

3.Isn’t the guns that you wish to protect yourself against often legal or have been legal?

4.Do you believe that you in all situations are suitable to handle a gun and in a mental state that you can take the correct decision if to use it?

5.In what situations is deadly force justified?

6.Do you believe that a lot of shootings are based on misunderstandings or saved someone from injury?

7.How miserably do you think I managed to fail to deliver my actual concerns about the concept guns for the sole purpose of self defence? :D[/quote]

Let me take a shot here Skarek . . .in large part I can see/feel your point of view. However, there is no defining the fine lines you are debating. Personality and attitude will change a person from minute to minute.

1. It would be far worse for a criminal to go free . . .especially when that crime was against you or your immediate family, no?

2. Self defense . . .the criminals over here have fully automatic weapons and will have them legal or illegal . . .if you were pinned down by a criminal with a automatic weapon would you feel good about having only your crossbow at hand? Would you prefer it to be the other way around? However, I'm with you on this one . . .who really needs a automatic?

3. Yes.

4. Who really knows. However, should I give up my use of guns because of this uncertainty that might show up if the absolute worse situation should present itself. Also . . .there is no way to accurately answer this unless the situation presents itself . . .I hope not to find out, however, I'd perfer to have a gun if the time comes.

5. When there is an immediate threat to life . . .everyone's determination will differ slightly, however, the criminal needs to be aware that we have the right to kill him/her and have a gun to complete the task.

6. Yes.

7. Very well.

Have you ever been in a violent situation? Had a gun held to your head and told to give over your belongings? Had to watch while a intruder raped your wife? Had to watch a criminal kill your kids? When you are the victim, your view tends to change.

I've never been a victim . . .my family has always had guns. I do believe that the presence of guns in general deters crime. Doesn't really matter what type of gun. Just make sure you have one and display it proudly.

If you make all guns for hunting only, then how do you differentiate? I've never have hunted with a handgun, nor a semi-auto, nor a fully auto . . .where do you draw the line. If I were hunting lions or other big cats, I'd perfer a fully automatic. Same goes for hunting Grizzlies . . .big cal. fully loaded and fully auto . . .then I'll go big bear hunting.

If we give up one weapon, then what weapon will be next? Could we do all our hunting with our crossbows? Sure could. Why not make everything but primative weapons illegal? Give an inch and they will take a mile.

[Limbs and Sticks]

When I was growing up, everybody had old shotguns, 22s, single-shot or whatever they could afford. The main reason was for sport, or to get something to eat, such as rabbits or squirrels. There weren't many deer around there back then. It wasn't really thought as to have them for protection, per se. But times have changed, and you have to change with them. So yes, now these weapons are for protection and what they were intended to do before the changing of the times. I don't believe anybody needs an uzi, but if they feel that they need one to protect their home, more power to them. We're invaded anyway. Just my thoughts.


Wes

[Boo]

Well there truly is something wrong with the bad guys and apparently some of the "good guys".
I've got news for some Canadians. It is against the law and considered immoral to take another's life for trespassing or theft. It is that way because of the morality of the country not the few demented that think it is ok.
As far as America, that's nice, you keep your two way violence, I like it here. Woody I agree with your nearly 100%. If someone were on my property I would do the same. If someone breaks into my home I will defend my loved ones with the bad guy's life, but only if needed.
Some of the recent talk makes me sick! It is repulsive and ignorant. If you want to talk stupid then why don't you guys PM each other. The form is supposed to be here to contribute to each other not alienate each other and it certainly is not here to talk about killing another human being!!!!! I hope some of you come to your senses and delete your posts!

[Hoss]

Shoot first... ask questions later.

That is what I'm afraid of.
Now you're getting it.

It's good to be afraid, that's the idea.

Fear of death (and the good Lord) will keep otherwise honest people... honest!

YEP just like locks on your car door..do you really think they will keep folks from getting in..It keeps the honest honest..

then this..BS

In Sweden (and some other countries) we have something called "Everyman's right" (Allemansrätten). This gives everyone the right to access, walk and stay on all (public I can understand that) BUT private land on the premises of "Do not disturb, do not destroy". You are allowed to pick berries (not if they are farmed) and mushrooms, collect dead wood for fires and camp even if it is private land.

Thats BS --why own property then. so others can drop buy and pick your apple tree, camp at your creek and watch you private buisness from a distance. I dont think so fella.. thats some good ole BS philosophy there. That just opens the door to some guy lurking on your property to see what you may have that he wants. OHH! SORRY FRIEND JUST GRAZZING THRU THE MUSHROOMS ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT YOUVE WORKED SO HARD TO OWN. BS.. Like it or not its the truth. to much crime in the USA to be so Ni eve.

Then you must think everyone is inherently good..WRONG. for instance from birth you are taught NO from the begining to keep you out of trouble. Then as you get older you learn your limits in society.

We have that same rule here in Oklahoma " Every mans right not to be shot as long as you are not on my private property". Heck i remember old man smith shooting at us with rock salt when we just ventured over to fish his pond.Made us respect asking permission first! This is going to be some good stuff to tell the boys tonight..

I knew this thread was going to open a bag a crap! Good job Grizz.

But I like it!

[kennisondan]

HI SHAREK : first I would aplogize if I get a bit testy when gun rights are discussed. It is my number one right in my book... it would ensure the rest of the freedoms that are given by law and man and natural law freedoms as well..the right to self defense is against all aggressors and within the second amendment and the unwritten law of the land or more clearly natural rights is the right and the ABILITY to protect your self and your way of life.. and to protect all the rights that you have claim to...religious freedom speech assembly all of them...
I think that if it comes across that folks would take a life lightly, I would beg to differ in that regard; the test is actually legally a two pronged test : would a reasonable man fear great bodily harm or death to you or another; and also did the individual actually reasonably fear that death or great harm... so you cannot be overly quick to take such actions, and if you do your actions are judged by those standards.
You are also correct that itis impossible for the two ideas of everyman's right to use versus our inherent right to keep and bear arms and the independance and self reliance that allows us in our own minds...I fear anyone or anything that would take my right and ability to enforce my access and exercise of all my natural rights from the ones codified into laws and constitutions and the ones that need not be written clearly out to exist. It is a strong belief for me that a disarmed nation is one step from enslavement; ultimate control by people who mean us no good; and it makes us a victim to any one with a gun... and there will always be guns.. I beleive in the right to hunt for food regardless of an open season by necessity; and that the gun is a tool; and the reason for a handgun is to have it accessible...as far as self defense against criminals and the shooting of other people .. that is only a small part of what the ownership and natural right to life and preservation of my own life and preservation my other natural rights --including the right to overthrow a corrupt government.. aand the duty to protect others and self is more than a right it is actually a duty... quite different..
I again apologize if this topic allowed my edges to bristle a bit.. I assure you I would second guess and be troubled by killing another human... and I would be too guilty to survive it if I felt I failed to protect my self and my family from great harm.. as to things... if they are stealing my car... I will not shoot them...it is only in the face of great bodily harm that I would justify using a gun and then i would try to avoid killing a person if at all possible..
if I see a nut job shooting kids in a school yard...I would not feel I had a right to try to protect the kids.. I would feel it is a duty and a right both... and I would not be able to live with my self if I had all my guns locked up and unaccessible when I have the right to have them accessaible and a duty to defend my self and others..
due to our media bias and likely your country's as well, you do not read about instances where guns in the hands of law abiding gun owning citizens stopped crimes in progress, deterred obviously pending crimes, and saved lives without killing anyone and you do not hear about when one is killed and it is justifiable heroic action involved...
Just as you were not surprised by the statements I and other made as they are typical gun righrts arguments... realize please that the arguments that access is dangerous and no guns no shootings and that the only reason to have a gun is for hunting etc etc are all the same arguments made over and over...
so we have such diverse cultural and moral compasses it is not easy to see the other side of the coin or the argument..
While I do not agree with some of the posts; I think also we should refrain from judging labelling and name calling based on statements that are just that ... words and quick responses...
I know you did not do that but some folks did and this is obviously a tender spot for a lot of folks...
I think that when you look at all the statements and read between the lines the clear and unclear the rash and the radical to the logical and calmly philosophic you will not need to take any one answer and dissect it.. I feel you are understanding our position and I know I am more understanding yours.
you see .. if it were my world.. we would all have lots more rights naturally recognized and you would be able to hunt on private land as well as public because the game would belong to the people, not the state not the government but the people...the rich could own other things but not the game and there could be no elite society that gets everything at the expense of everyone else..
so you and I could hunt, shoot, fish, camp, but not destroy... and you and I could decide to shoot any gun we wanted just because it is like deciding what to eat.. some folks do not eat meat on fridays... ok .. but if I want a burger I feel that is beyond what they or anyone can control for me.. it is that natural a thing to me and to many.. it is not about violence it is about safety; and independance and not having to rely on others for protection nor to rely on others in power to be good people.... it is basic to real freedom.. and comes with some problems, agreed...
Peace Love.. and good wishes to you my friend.. I lke the idea of being able to camp ... would like to do that on obama's white house lawn...
LOL
dk