In another thread, one of our international members made the following statement about himself and his countrymen:
I / we have never understood the American need to use guns to "defend" themselves all the time.
You may read his comments in their entirety here:
http://www.excaliburcrossbow.com/phpBB2 ... hp?t=25758
I seldom reply in such length to any comment, but I felt this subject did merit a response from an American. I also believe it's something other Americans might want to comment on too, so I created this new thread.
Let me make some things perfectly clear:
I am not "calling out" the poster who made the above comment.
I am not attempting to demean the poster in any way.
I am not seeking argument, or trying to start a controversy.
I am, however, speaking my American heart on this issue. The poster said he and his countrymen don't understand. Perhaps this will help:
I believe I speak for a multitude of Americans when I say that a great many of us (and you can bet that includes 99% of us on this forum) are firm believers in THE CASTLE DOCTRINE of Self-Defense.
To make things simple, and because I'm tired, I offer this definition thereof, from the popular Wikipedia:
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
I also believe I speak for a multitude of Americans when I say that we believe that we have not only a right but a moral responsibility to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and others who need help from violent people intent on hurting or killing us or them.
Many Americans would not consider someone a true American who is not prepared to defend themselves, their loved ones, and others needing help from wanton violence by any means, up to and including the use of deadly force ... and I am one of them.
There are those in our nation who believe we should depend upon the government for our whole protection, and that a police state can better serve our need for home and personal defense than we can ourselves. Many of these same people believe that firearms should be strictly controlled, or even prohibited. I am not one of them.
Instead, along with a multitude of other Americans, I stand ever ready to see my own blood shed, and even to sacrifice my life, in defense of the innocent against aggression and violence from evil people intent upon doing harm. I stand ever ready to take up arms to do so, and to apply necessary force to do so, up to and including the use of deadly force.
In that, I am like a multitude of Americans.
As for the preferred use of firearms in self-defense, I suggest that it is a plain matter of efficiency. A properly trained person with the strength of will to use a firearm in self-defense or in defense of others is a person who is capable of resisting evil forcefully.
You may believe that, lacking an available firearm, we will defend ourselves anyway. It isn't about the weapons. It's about doing what's right ... and resisting evil is right ... even by force, when necessary.
I love people. I love life. I have no desire to ever have to shed the blood of another in resisting evil, any more than I have the desire to shed my own in defense of self or others.
But I will, if I have to.
And in that, I believe I speak for a multitude of Americans.
AMERICANS and SELF-DEFENSE
Moderator: Excalibur Marketing Dude
-
Grizzly Adam
- Posts: 5701
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:36 pm
- Location: Decatur County, Indiana
Wow Grizz, though I'm not American, after reading that I'm proud to have married one! 
While I totally agree in principle with all you say here the problem with the Castle Doctrine is it only absolves you from and criminal proceedings. It does nothing to to protect you from civil litigation. While, if you shoot and kill an intruder in defense of your home and family you may not face any criminal charges, more often than not these days the family of the "poor, misguided crack addict who had a traumatic upbringing and was just on the verge of turning his life around" will slap you with a messy civil lawsuit and even if they don't win they can make your life a living hell for awhile. Not saying it's right but it seems to be a fact of life these days.
While I totally agree in principle with all you say here the problem with the Castle Doctrine is it only absolves you from and criminal proceedings. It does nothing to to protect you from civil litigation. While, if you shoot and kill an intruder in defense of your home and family you may not face any criminal charges, more often than not these days the family of the "poor, misguided crack addict who had a traumatic upbringing and was just on the verge of turning his life around" will slap you with a messy civil lawsuit and even if they don't win they can make your life a living hell for awhile. Not saying it's right but it seems to be a fact of life these days.
The most important blood trail leads to the Cross...
Phoenix
HHA Optimizer
Hawke scope
Boo strings
Boo tuned trigger
Phoenix
HHA Optimizer
Hawke scope
Boo strings
Boo tuned trigger
-
kennisondan
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:45 pm
- Location: South Louisiana
I agree with griz. he spoke my heart.
as to whether the victim/perpetrator would win; i seriously doubt it.. in civil law it is a defense that the perpetrator or victim invited or reasonably should have expected the outcome... like jumping before a speeding auto to force it to stop... assumption of the risk is what it is called... before I would use deadly force i would warn the intruder or perp. that I was prepared and armed... I would not harm him or her if they then retreated.. in some instances I may arrest them but most likely I would try to allow them the chance to live and to avoid serious injury... if they decline, then even moreso they have embarked on a dangerous activity, and even when reasonably warned they embraced the danger .. when it is substancially certain that death or great bodily harm will occur, and the perp. keeps up the same threat level of great bodily harm they are assuming the risk and ignoring the reasonable warnings.. all that it takes to bar a recovery is reasonable steps to warn; and reasonalbe attempts to avoid the damage to the victim... add to that the victim fault percentage would be like 100per cent... it is a no go..
I would also make a motion to have the perp. punished for filing a frivolous lawsuit and counter sue to raise their stakes...
when I do not have a gun I have a knife and would protect family and the other innocents as reasonable and necessary...we americans of the old school like that are getting a little more scarce... too many folks want to beleive that crime prevention instead of crime investigation is what the police largely do... it is reporting and investigation.... the potential victims and bystanders are the preventers of crime.. I practice criminal law and can tell you something about all of that ..
just my opinion and I am not fighting about it.... just do not try to take my guns ... you will be ok as long as no one knows you do not have any and would not protect yourself ... at that point you are a lamb on ice... ready for the table at will... i am not and will never be ...
dk
as to whether the victim/perpetrator would win; i seriously doubt it.. in civil law it is a defense that the perpetrator or victim invited or reasonably should have expected the outcome... like jumping before a speeding auto to force it to stop... assumption of the risk is what it is called... before I would use deadly force i would warn the intruder or perp. that I was prepared and armed... I would not harm him or her if they then retreated.. in some instances I may arrest them but most likely I would try to allow them the chance to live and to avoid serious injury... if they decline, then even moreso they have embarked on a dangerous activity, and even when reasonably warned they embraced the danger .. when it is substancially certain that death or great bodily harm will occur, and the perp. keeps up the same threat level of great bodily harm they are assuming the risk and ignoring the reasonable warnings.. all that it takes to bar a recovery is reasonable steps to warn; and reasonalbe attempts to avoid the damage to the victim... add to that the victim fault percentage would be like 100per cent... it is a no go..
I would also make a motion to have the perp. punished for filing a frivolous lawsuit and counter sue to raise their stakes...
when I do not have a gun I have a knife and would protect family and the other innocents as reasonable and necessary...we americans of the old school like that are getting a little more scarce... too many folks want to beleive that crime prevention instead of crime investigation is what the police largely do... it is reporting and investigation.... the potential victims and bystanders are the preventers of crime.. I practice criminal law and can tell you something about all of that ..
just my opinion and I am not fighting about it.... just do not try to take my guns ... you will be ok as long as no one knows you do not have any and would not protect yourself ... at that point you are a lamb on ice... ready for the table at will... i am not and will never be ...
dk
life guard at the gene pool
-
theoldarcher
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:31 pm
- Location: Summerville, Georgia
deleted this response
Last edited by theoldarcher on Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My last post as an answer in the thead Grizzly Adam spoke about.
I have no time to make further comments at the moment. But I'll be back after some histology and pathology. And thanks Grizzly Adam for the new thread.
I knew I walked on dangerous grounds when I wrote my first post. Ecpesially as this is a hunting forum with, i persume, alot of people who own guns. At the same time I hoped that here, I might find the answers I've been looking for.kennisondan: Hmm. I'm not that surprised of your answer. It is a quite common pro guns argument. In a way my post might have been misunderstood.
First about my quote. I have no plain statistics, that I confess. It was based on facts (or things claimed to be facts), things stated and so on that reaches this side of the Atlantic. More on this later...
I'm not against the concept of owning a gun. I'm not speaking out that it should be outlawed in the states. I more raise my eyebrows over the concept of using deadly force against a fellow human and the reason to own one for self defense. My reasons, well...
I know criminals have guns. The criminals in Sweden also have guns. It is quite easy to buy an illegal gun in Sweden, it is claimed. So the guns are out there in the hands of criminals. The thing is that when they know that their prey don't have a gun, they skip using theirs. I think this is one of basis of my argument. If both sides have guns in a conflict, both sides fear for their life and have accepted that they can use their gun. The result, a lot of people shooting each other.
Sweden is a quite small country, 8 million, but as you might know our country's "standard of life"/"social development level" are on the same level as in the states (maybe even slightly higher, hard to really say as I only seen the states thou camera eyes). As I stated in my post the police might have fired 15 shots in the last 10 years... There must be a reason. The reason can not only be that our criminals are nicer guys than you criminals.
The removal of the guns owned by ordinary people would create chaos in USA. Your criminals are used to use of their guns. They believe that they meet a person with a gun. So they have accepeted that they might use their guns. I just wonder if this is the ultimate solution. I belive not, but this is me. I belive it is the hands of the lawinforcement to fight crime.
It is not up to me to decide, in any way, if you wish to have handguns in your country, It is up to you. But as a person looking at the system from the outside I can question if it is the right decision.
This boils back to the reason I wrote my first post in this thread. What would have happened if the supposed young girl would not have had the shotgun. I don't know. The criminals might have taken their stuff and been on their way. They might have raped and murdered her. I don't know. One thing I do know is that I'm against the use of deadly force against any human, even criminals. To look lightly on the killing of 2 people scares me, even if they are criminals. Becasue who drawes the line between criminal and not criminal, is it always clear? Is tresspassing alone reason enouth to shoot somebody?
In the end I think justice shall meet all criminals, but this I think is the governments job not each citizen. When people gets scared they do stupid things, I do stupid things. A scared person with a handgun can do really stupid things...
Lastly I just want to state one more thing. A large part of the European contries look at the gun policies in the states with an raised eyebrow. We have not implemented a system like yours. We are fed with media questioning your decicions about "guns for self defence". In part this might be propaganda, but in part I think you might benefit from asking why you need the guns and we don't. Why Europeans can't even understand the concept, the reason etc.
I don't know if I really reached a solution in this post. I just hope I in some way more clearly stated my thought on the subject.
I have no time to make further comments at the moment. But I'll be back after some histology and pathology. And thanks Grizzly Adam for the new thread.
But I will, if I have to.
And in that, I believe I speak for a multitude of Americans.
- Grizz, I fully agree & support your comments. I'd go so far as to say for the most of us on this forum I believe you could add " Canadians" to your last sentence. I know not all, but a good percentage.
-Michael
And in that, I believe I speak for a multitude of Americans.
- Grizz, I fully agree & support your comments. I'd go so far as to say for the most of us on this forum I believe you could add " Canadians" to your last sentence. I know not all, but a good percentage.
-Michael
"like a hound...he hunts in his dreams"
-
Grizzly Adam
- Posts: 5701
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:36 pm
- Location: Decatur County, Indiana
Yes, I know that many Canadians share the same convictions concerning defense of self, home, and innocents. I had originally included the parenthetical statement (and Canadians too) in several of my remarks, but finally decided to keep them strictly in context, as Skarek specified Americans.MPSNIPER wrote: Grizz said: But I will, if I have to. And in that, I believe I speak for a multitude of Americans.
Grizz, I fully agree & support your comments. I'd go so far as to say for the most of us on this forum I believe you could add " Canadians" to your last sentence. I know not all, but a good percentage. Michael
I knew, too, that a Canadian would soon chime in!
Glad many of y'all feel similarly!
Grizz
-
Pydpiper
- Posts: 6148
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:56 pm
- Location: Woodstock, Brantford'ish, ON
- Contact:
As an American I grew up in a home that had firearms for the sole purpose of self defence, thankfully they were never needed.
When I left home at an early age I found myself living in one of the nastiest suburbs of Detroit trying to make my way through life, I never considered owning a gun, even though they were very common to see. I spent my first couple years of high school walking through a metal detector, I still managed to be one of very few kids in school that wasn't carrying.
I think the first step to having guns accepted as a responsible means of defence or sport is going to be education, somehow finding a way to inform the public that firearms are not dangerous.
I remember when I got my carriers permit in Michigan when my Father handed me my first pistol, I walked in to the police station, handed my drivers licence to the officer, answered 5 true/false questions that required no previous experience with firearms and I was good to go.
Now, here in Canada we have to jump through hoops the size of an eye on a needle, there should be some medium ground that will satisfy the firearm owners as well as the publics insatiable appetite to take them away.
It's not the guns that pose the threat, it is the fear of them.
When I left home at an early age I found myself living in one of the nastiest suburbs of Detroit trying to make my way through life, I never considered owning a gun, even though they were very common to see. I spent my first couple years of high school walking through a metal detector, I still managed to be one of very few kids in school that wasn't carrying.
I think the first step to having guns accepted as a responsible means of defence or sport is going to be education, somehow finding a way to inform the public that firearms are not dangerous.
I remember when I got my carriers permit in Michigan when my Father handed me my first pistol, I walked in to the police station, handed my drivers licence to the officer, answered 5 true/false questions that required no previous experience with firearms and I was good to go.
Now, here in Canada we have to jump through hoops the size of an eye on a needle, there should be some medium ground that will satisfy the firearm owners as well as the publics insatiable appetite to take them away.
It's not the guns that pose the threat, it is the fear of them.
If you are not willing to learn, nobody can help you, if you are willing, nobody can stop you.
A bowhunter with a passion for shooting firearms.
WMU 91
Boo string
A bowhunter with a passion for shooting firearms.
WMU 91
Boo string
Please take the time to read this very long post, too long. Otherwise it will be hard for us to understand each other (it might not help becasue I might have failed to deliver my point).
This is an enormously complex issue. It has many points, angles and seems to steer up a lot of feelings. This is why it is dangerous to discuss. Both sides often fast reach the argument "Either your with us or against us". As this thread was started due to a post I made, may I take the liberty to try to give some structure to the topic based on my question?
First, some statements to clarify my position and what I wish to discuss, where my questions lie.
Language. When discussion complex topics I must state that remember that English is not my first language. I might write things that you read as insults or are offending. This is never my intention! It will be due to lack of words, grammar or general knowledge of the English language. Please take the time to think one extra time, what is it he might want to say. I wish to discuss the topic philosophically. I do not wish to make people angry, attack their way of life or insult them as persons, Americans or human beings.
Guns for me means both handguns and rifles, but mainly rifles. Handguns for me mean pistols and revolvers.
Swedish gun laws,
what is normal for me and the base of how I approach the topic. In Sweden you are allowed to own hunting rifles if you have passed a series hunting exam(low caliber rifles and shotguns + a separate for higher caliber rifels) , including shooting skill tests. Then you have to get a license for the specific guns. The rules are rather strict and it will probably take a person about half a year to get the exam (like a drivers license). The license then takes about 2 months to get. There are also rules about the rifles. Automatics are not allowed, semi-automatics are accepted but harder to get. Max 7 bullets are allowed in rifles and 3 in shotguns. Handguns are not allowed. There is a small possibility to get a handgun legally on the basis of competition, but this is REALLY hard, you have to be a really active shooter with good results and the license has to be reapplied every 5 years. When we don’t use our weapons they have to be stored in special weapon lockers with made of at least 4 mm hardened steel.
My thoughts on guns
I own hunting rifles (with the standards stated above). I also have licenses for 3 crossbows. Something that is very special in Sweden, as getting the license to own a crossbow is by far harder than to license a handgun (which is sick, sad and strange, but not part of this discussion). I like guns but fear their power of destruction. I think guns are good tools for hunting (even if I would prefer to use my crossbow if it would be legal here). I’m fascinated by guns, might say they are cool in a way. In some ways there are a lot of heavier and more advanced rifles and handguns that I would like to own and “play with” but I also know that I have no real use for them and understand why I’m not allowed to get them. Classic example is a Mg-42, like the gun, would like to own one, but for what reason?
My thoughts on self defense
I think you shall be allowed to defend yourself, the people close to use, other human beings and property. I would use my guns/crossbows to do this if I felt it necessary. But there is no room in my mind to shoot to kill. I study to save life, every ones life, whoever they are. I can’t decide who to treat based on who they are, how they live and so on. They are all humans. I think the same way about criminals. I know that I would reach a point of threat where I would fire my guns, I know there might be situations where it is even possible that I would even shoot to kill, but I could never justify a shot that killed, never. So in my eyes, how easy should you make it for someone to make the mistake and kill someone?
Size of countries & simplifications
Sweden has a population of 8 million, USA of about 305 million. I think the size of this country is beyond the grasp of a person living in a small country (maybe even you?). If I just study the diversity in a small country like Sweden, I can’t imagine how I would grasp the diversity of USA. Still I believe I have a picture of USA, “Americans”and how your system work. Which of cause is totally absurd.
My picture of the states & media coverage
As always media cover the extreme examples. That is what is interesting to report. You hear about the kids gone postal, about polices shooting innocent guys, Japanese students shot by shotguns thru doors of people homes when the knock on the door to ask about something, states where people buy mortars to protect themselves (maybe not mortars, but heavy in my eyes military equipment). As always you never see the life of the real every day American. You see parts of the system, like extremes as Cops (it affects the view…), the Hollywood life, the picture of the gun crazy, trigger happy Texas guy and so on. Then we have the Hollywood movie way of showing USA, war movies, gangster movies, cop movies, ordinary dramas etc. The list can go on for ever. Don’t think I believe all I see and hear. Remember that I try to find the real USA under all this, I write this post due to that. But still, I can’t claim anything else than that all these things affect me/us. I know deep inside that in most cases the everyday life in USA is probably rather like my everyday life, but this knowledge often drown due to other input.
What I see as “overkill” guns or guns with no civilian use
As base, se the statement about what guns are legal in Sweden. The amount of bullets can be discussed, I have no real opinion. I see no real civilian reason for full automatics. You loose precision and just risk to miss or hit something that was unintended. I only see the use for covering fire and to kill people in large groups. What I would claim are military uses. Really high caliber rifles (like .50s) have in my eyes no civilian use, they are made to be armor piercing (as I understand it they are not that commonly allowed in USA). Handguns in my eyes only have uses as shooting in “close combat”, as an offensive defense. As you probably already understood, something I don’t think is part of the civilian life, but one of the reasons for discussion.
Now back to the question at hand:
I believe that an innocent person judged is far worse than a criminal gone free. By this reasoning I believe one innocent shot is not worth the risk of a criminal gone free.
As I hope you understand by now, I’m not against owning rifles for hunting. I’m not against defending yourself, your property and other humans. I’m skeptic of owning guns for the sole reason of self defense. By this, I don’t understand the reason to own guns that are not made for hunting.
I believe that the most of the people on this forum is persons with a interest that involves guns. You learn the stuff you need and probably think it thru. In my eyes you might be a “lower risk” group. The way I see it is the large group of people that gets a gun, because you are supposed to have one or just think they are cool or wish to impress someone. The group that does not really have the interest in the guns, just the power that comes with them. People that does not really learn to handle them and doesn’t think thru the responsibility that comes with owning a gun and so on. This is the main scary group. This is the group that has it harder to get guns in Sweden. This is the group that especially doesn’t get handguns they can carry around without people noticing.
Lastly I wish to say something about access. I hope we all can agree on that the amount of shootings correlate with access of guns. No guns, no shootings. If everyone carries a weapon it is easy to access a weapon if threatened. By this it is also easy to shoot someone. The “weak” minds have the quick possibility to shoot someone without thinking it thru. If the accessibility is lower, you have to use more time to get hold of a gun and by this possibly have time to think it thru. By not having handguns, everyone can see how the dangerous the situation due to the rifles. I believe that the extra time it would take me to go to my weapon safe, open it, load my gun and go back gives me a lot of time to think the situation thru and by this not do anything stupid. If I had a pistol at my hip, I might miss act too soon…
As always it is terribly hard to boil this enormously complex topic down to something graspable. Even thou I hoped to achieve it this time I think I yet another time failed miserably. This is probably why I never understand the American point of view. Hopefully you might have a chance to understand mine at least. Please comment on my thoughts, where are my errors of thought? Please take time to answer these short questions, that I think are central to help with my understanding.
What is worse, an innocent person sentenced or a criminal walking free?
What are the use of a full automatic in civilian life? What does it give that a semi automatic does not?
Isn’t the guns that you wish to protect yourself against often legal or have been legal?
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?
In what situations is deadly force justified?
Do you believe that a lot of shootings are based on misunderstandings or saved someone from injury?
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
This is an enormously complex issue. It has many points, angles and seems to steer up a lot of feelings. This is why it is dangerous to discuss. Both sides often fast reach the argument "Either your with us or against us". As this thread was started due to a post I made, may I take the liberty to try to give some structure to the topic based on my question?
First, some statements to clarify my position and what I wish to discuss, where my questions lie.
Language. When discussion complex topics I must state that remember that English is not my first language. I might write things that you read as insults or are offending. This is never my intention! It will be due to lack of words, grammar or general knowledge of the English language. Please take the time to think one extra time, what is it he might want to say. I wish to discuss the topic philosophically. I do not wish to make people angry, attack their way of life or insult them as persons, Americans or human beings.
Guns for me means both handguns and rifles, but mainly rifles. Handguns for me mean pistols and revolvers.
Swedish gun laws,
what is normal for me and the base of how I approach the topic. In Sweden you are allowed to own hunting rifles if you have passed a series hunting exam(low caliber rifles and shotguns + a separate for higher caliber rifels) , including shooting skill tests. Then you have to get a license for the specific guns. The rules are rather strict and it will probably take a person about half a year to get the exam (like a drivers license). The license then takes about 2 months to get. There are also rules about the rifles. Automatics are not allowed, semi-automatics are accepted but harder to get. Max 7 bullets are allowed in rifles and 3 in shotguns. Handguns are not allowed. There is a small possibility to get a handgun legally on the basis of competition, but this is REALLY hard, you have to be a really active shooter with good results and the license has to be reapplied every 5 years. When we don’t use our weapons they have to be stored in special weapon lockers with made of at least 4 mm hardened steel.
My thoughts on guns
I own hunting rifles (with the standards stated above). I also have licenses for 3 crossbows. Something that is very special in Sweden, as getting the license to own a crossbow is by far harder than to license a handgun (which is sick, sad and strange, but not part of this discussion). I like guns but fear their power of destruction. I think guns are good tools for hunting (even if I would prefer to use my crossbow if it would be legal here). I’m fascinated by guns, might say they are cool in a way. In some ways there are a lot of heavier and more advanced rifles and handguns that I would like to own and “play with” but I also know that I have no real use for them and understand why I’m not allowed to get them. Classic example is a Mg-42, like the gun, would like to own one, but for what reason?
My thoughts on self defense
I think you shall be allowed to defend yourself, the people close to use, other human beings and property. I would use my guns/crossbows to do this if I felt it necessary. But there is no room in my mind to shoot to kill. I study to save life, every ones life, whoever they are. I can’t decide who to treat based on who they are, how they live and so on. They are all humans. I think the same way about criminals. I know that I would reach a point of threat where I would fire my guns, I know there might be situations where it is even possible that I would even shoot to kill, but I could never justify a shot that killed, never. So in my eyes, how easy should you make it for someone to make the mistake and kill someone?
Size of countries & simplifications
Sweden has a population of 8 million, USA of about 305 million. I think the size of this country is beyond the grasp of a person living in a small country (maybe even you?). If I just study the diversity in a small country like Sweden, I can’t imagine how I would grasp the diversity of USA. Still I believe I have a picture of USA, “Americans”and how your system work. Which of cause is totally absurd.
My picture of the states & media coverage
As always media cover the extreme examples. That is what is interesting to report. You hear about the kids gone postal, about polices shooting innocent guys, Japanese students shot by shotguns thru doors of people homes when the knock on the door to ask about something, states where people buy mortars to protect themselves (maybe not mortars, but heavy in my eyes military equipment). As always you never see the life of the real every day American. You see parts of the system, like extremes as Cops (it affects the view…), the Hollywood life, the picture of the gun crazy, trigger happy Texas guy and so on. Then we have the Hollywood movie way of showing USA, war movies, gangster movies, cop movies, ordinary dramas etc. The list can go on for ever. Don’t think I believe all I see and hear. Remember that I try to find the real USA under all this, I write this post due to that. But still, I can’t claim anything else than that all these things affect me/us. I know deep inside that in most cases the everyday life in USA is probably rather like my everyday life, but this knowledge often drown due to other input.
What I see as “overkill” guns or guns with no civilian use
As base, se the statement about what guns are legal in Sweden. The amount of bullets can be discussed, I have no real opinion. I see no real civilian reason for full automatics. You loose precision and just risk to miss or hit something that was unintended. I only see the use for covering fire and to kill people in large groups. What I would claim are military uses. Really high caliber rifles (like .50s) have in my eyes no civilian use, they are made to be armor piercing (as I understand it they are not that commonly allowed in USA). Handguns in my eyes only have uses as shooting in “close combat”, as an offensive defense. As you probably already understood, something I don’t think is part of the civilian life, but one of the reasons for discussion.
Now back to the question at hand:
I agree, but believe this applies to all humans, the question is by what means.Grizzly Adam wrote:I also believe I speak for a multitude of Americans when I say that we believe that we have not only a right but a moral responsibility to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and others who need help from violent people intent on hurting or killing us or them.
Wow, almost lyric words (absolutely no irony intended!!! Just had problems formulating a positive sentence without feeling a touch of irony in it). But how fast do you reach the use of deadly force?Grizzly Adam wrote:Instead, along with a multitude of other Americans, I stand ever ready to see my own blood shed, and even to sacrifice my life, in defense of the innocent against aggression and violence from evil people intent upon doing harm. I stand ever ready to take up arms to do so, and to apply necessary force to do so, up to and including the use of deadly force.
But who is this person, in what state of mind. If we only look at it from the armed victims point of view. In the best of world this person is well rested, informed, sober and thinks thru the actions. I believe, and I guess the most of you would agree with me that this is not always the case. As a victim, you will probably be scared. Scared people do not thought thru things. The victim might just have voken up, the list goes on. All these things boils down to the fact that the deadly force might be applied to someone that the same person would never shoot when the mind were with them. So even with the right knowledge, values etc. can you really trust that you use the deadly force against the right individual?theoldarcher wrote:It’s not the gun that kills people it’s the person behind it...
I believe that an innocent person judged is far worse than a criminal gone free. By this reasoning I believe one innocent shot is not worth the risk of a criminal gone free.
As I hope you understand by now, I’m not against owning rifles for hunting. I’m not against defending yourself, your property and other humans. I’m skeptic of owning guns for the sole reason of self defense. By this, I don’t understand the reason to own guns that are not made for hunting.
I believe that the most of the people on this forum is persons with a interest that involves guns. You learn the stuff you need and probably think it thru. In my eyes you might be a “lower risk” group. The way I see it is the large group of people that gets a gun, because you are supposed to have one or just think they are cool or wish to impress someone. The group that does not really have the interest in the guns, just the power that comes with them. People that does not really learn to handle them and doesn’t think thru the responsibility that comes with owning a gun and so on. This is the main scary group. This is the group that has it harder to get guns in Sweden. This is the group that especially doesn’t get handguns they can carry around without people noticing.
Lastly I wish to say something about access. I hope we all can agree on that the amount of shootings correlate with access of guns. No guns, no shootings. If everyone carries a weapon it is easy to access a weapon if threatened. By this it is also easy to shoot someone. The “weak” minds have the quick possibility to shoot someone without thinking it thru. If the accessibility is lower, you have to use more time to get hold of a gun and by this possibly have time to think it thru. By not having handguns, everyone can see how the dangerous the situation due to the rifles. I believe that the extra time it would take me to go to my weapon safe, open it, load my gun and go back gives me a lot of time to think the situation thru and by this not do anything stupid. If I had a pistol at my hip, I might miss act too soon…
As always it is terribly hard to boil this enormously complex topic down to something graspable. Even thou I hoped to achieve it this time I think I yet another time failed miserably. This is probably why I never understand the American point of view. Hopefully you might have a chance to understand mine at least. Please comment on my thoughts, where are my errors of thought? Please take time to answer these short questions, that I think are central to help with my understanding.
What is worse, an innocent person sentenced or a criminal walking free?
What are the use of a full automatic in civilian life? What does it give that a semi automatic does not?
Isn’t the guns that you wish to protect yourself against often legal or have been legal?
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?
In what situations is deadly force justified?
Do you believe that a lot of shootings are based on misunderstandings or saved someone from injury?
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?
:DOur country is founded on numerous guiding principles, among them is the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. A person who threatens me or mine with deadly force, violates all three of these founding principles and, in the process not only forfeits HIS right to humane treatment but empowers me to use whatever force is necessary to protect my rights.
Let the police protect those who feel they cannot protect themselves. And I would definitely rely on them to protect me if available. But, I see it as MY responsibility ultimately. And would not hesitate for one moment to do so,
whatever the cost to me.
Let the police protect those who feel they cannot protect themselves. And I would definitely rely on them to protect me if available. But, I see it as MY responsibility ultimately. And would not hesitate for one moment to do so,
whatever the cost to me.
Very well said Grizzly,and i couldn't agree more! I think it's like Mike P stated,people abroad have their own perception of America.They dont see alot of the evil's that takes place here every day here. There are no safe havens! At any time you and your loved ones can become a target in a wink of an eye. Things WILL get worse before it get's better,be prepared!Invade my castle,if i get the jump on you you will die and i wont lose a wink of sleep over it!
