[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That doesn’t, however, mean we should be like the ball-less mainland of Europe and just give up our guns. That would be thoroughly un-American. [/quote]
What leads you to the conclusion we’re ball-less? Drink hard last night, did you?[/quote]
I don’t admire any society that willingly lets its guns go.
Specifically, Great Britain is the example for what I NEVER want America to turn into.
[quote]elano wrote:
[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Are they exactly allowed to own guns if they buy them illegaly? Don’t think so…
That’s like saying people should be allowed to buy drugs because it’s kind of unfair only criminals are “allowed” to enjoy that wonderful high? Sorry, that analogy sucks, but you know what I’m getting at…
[/quote]
No, your analogy sucks. Drugs have been outlawed for 30 years and people have no problem getting them today. They are smuggled into the country illegally. Just because a piece of paper says something is against the law doesn’t mean criminals are going to go “ah shucks” and turn in their gun to the police. Your logic is flawed, this isn’t fairy tale world. People who are on drugs will rob a store and not hesitate to shoot you in the face for $5 dollars. It’s been done time and time again. Most of those people were unelgiable to purchase a gun legally because of previous crimes (felons are not allowed to own a gun), so they bought it from Rob in the alley for $30 bucks. Yeah that’s how cheap throw away pistols are on the black market. Outlawing guns or making them hard to purchase legally would only allow these thugs to carry them around. And no, their not allowed to. Their criminals, they don’t care about the law.
[/quote]
Well, thank you for proving my point then. If you read carefully, I was saying exactly that. Criminals aren’t allowed to own guns anyways (same as drugs) but they’ll own them anyways. That doesn’t mean everyone should be allowed to own guns (take drugs), just because we know there will always be a group of people who don’t care about the law. You know, that’s why we have police. To uphold the law. That’s why they carry guns.
[quote]
It’s actually not a totally different story. If a guy wants to kick your ass and take your stuff, it doesn’t really matter if he has a gun or a knife. I’ll agree with you that pepper spray is a GREAT self-defense weapon. For many of these criminals though, pepper spray isn’t going to stop them from kicking in your door, shooting you, raping your wife, and then stealing your stuff. In cases like this a gun is your only real way to protect yourself, your family, and your property. [/quote]
True. But then chances are you’re not quick enough with a gun, either. All gun training can only show you how to handle that thing, being confronted and put in a stress situation can quickly blow away all training. A lot of traditional martial artists have proven that by losing to fat sobs that could handle more stress (or were drunk enough not to be overly much affected by stress). Also, talking about killing a person is easy.
[quote]
I dunno how you got that feeling from what I previously wrote. I would sure be proud of my sister though if she gunned down a man who was trying to rape her. Don’t really care how your European ethics on that matter. Around here we like to stop crimes before they happen.[/quote]
Right. That’s why you have more of them ;). Which, again, somehow proves my point about stricter gun-laws… but then again, you guys are right. I’m just a foreigner, so why do you even listen to my opinion about your ideas of crime prevention and gun politics? kthxbai was is, wasn’t it? Lol.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]MightyCivil wrote:
Do you want me to criticise the Germans for not limiting the speed on their autobahns…? [/quote]
No, I want you to criticize them for allowing Hitler to take their guns from them, and making the citizenry completely defenseless.
I forget who said it originally, but it stands as true that every dictatorship first bans guns, then starts banning books. When those two things happen, you’re on a dark, dark road.[/quote]
Hmm… Quite frankly, usually you seem to be a reasonable guy. Please look that thing about “taking away the guns from the people” up again. Living in Austria (Hitler’s birthplace) and having lots of polish family (biggest victim of that terrible war) basically had me learn every detail from the time, from more than one point of view. That’s why I can’t approve phrases like that one.
Also, criticizing the Germans today for what Hitler did is heavy. Think about the political landscape here in Europe around that time - times were different. I guess you wouldn’t want me to critizise “the americans” (generalization sucks so much) for the genocide they commited against the native americans or the crimes they did to african slaves.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not German, so I could just ignore that, it’s just I’m not used to reading that kind of stuff from you.
You know, that’s why we have police. To uphold the law. That’s why they carry guns.
…
Thats actually NOT why we have police. In fact the SC has ruled that a police officer has NO duty to protect an indvidual.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
In my eyes, Frank Mir has a great attitude and is a good representative. He’s got great skills on the ground and his striking has improved.
Shame the opposition has improved a little faster than him. He’s a great guy. I also sometimes think he’d have been a beast if it wasn’t for that crash.[/quote]
What the fuck are you talking about? When his head’s in it he’s as dangerous as anyone in the HW division, and he proved it last night.[/quote]
WHEN his head’s in it. When it isn’t, he seems to get caught cold - however as I’ve read a lot of your posts and you seem like you know what you’re talking about more than me, I’ll back off on this point.
EDIT: I agree mostly with what MIR said, accept as others have pointed out, how many women do you know would really take the training and everything SERIOUSLY? I mean sure they might attend and go through the motions, but for most women, it may just be like having a car. Just cause you’re allowed to drive a car doesn’t mean you’re not dangerous/any good at driving it. Hell, I’ll even say the same for GUYS having guns too. I’m not anti-firearm, but I know there are a lot of people who aren’t rational in this world.
[/quote]
Sorry if the “what the fuck are you talking about” came across as abrasive. I was hung over, haha. I agree with some of Mirs points and like his idea of handgun training while under duress. I also feel like most should be allowed to carry, but that there should be fairly strict testing to allow one that right and that there be a mandatory maintenance of the skills and procedures aquired through the testing.[/quote]
Nah, you believed it, it’s all good. At one point imo Mir was unstoppable but then somehow I feel it slipped…I have a UFC DVD where he’s backstage after his comeback fight from his accident where he got beat by a stoppage from a cut, and he says something along the lines of “roll with the loss, learn from your mistake, come back stronger”. I dont think any words could have been more true after that.
In my book the guy is a legend for his abilities and logic… and this is written while under the influence to beat your hangover! lol
P.S work xmas parties are shit, I got shitfaced far too early and left cause everyone is full of shit. If you’re in two minds whether to go to yours or not, dont freakin bother!
EDIT: FIGHTING IRISH!
You’re in America, why bring up another countries problems? We’re in the shit like America is economy wise, we dont have school shootings or mass murders - atleast VERY VERY RARELY, each nation has their own unique set of problems. I could say a lot of shit about america from our standpoint, you could say a lot about our teeth, but shit, none of it will be revolutionary and none of it will affect the topic of the thread.
[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Hmm… Quite frankly, usually you seem to be a reasonable guy. Please look that thing about “taking away the guns from the people” up again. Living in Austria (Hitler’s birthplace) and having lots of polish family (biggest victim of that terrible war) basically had me learn every detail from the time, from more than one point of view. That’s why I can’t approve phrases like that one.
[/quote]
I know what you’re saying. But regardless, the Germans did strip their citizens of guns around that time. Hitler just kind of expanded the law. But the citizens were unarmed, that’s the point.
Try rounding up a well armed citizenry in order to put them in concentration camps. Not gonna work so well.
[quote]
Also, criticizing the Germans today for what Hitler did is heavy. Think about the political landscape here in Europe around that time - times were different. I guess you wouldn’t want me to critizise “the americans” (generalization sucks so much) for the genocide they commited against the native americans or the crimes they did to african slaves.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not German, so I could just ignore that, it’s just I’m not used to reading that kind of stuff from you.[/quote]
Man, I’m a liberal. I have criticized America a million times for those crimes and many more.
Right is right, wrong is wrong, no matter what time period it happened in.
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
EDIT: FIGHTING IRISH!
You’re in America, why bring up another countries problems? We’re in the shit like America is economy wise, we dont have school shootings or mass murders - atleast VERY VERY RARELY, each nation has their own unique set of problems. I could say a lot of shit about america from our standpoint, you could say a lot about our teeth, but shit, none of it will be revolutionary and none of it will affect the topic of the thread.[/quote]
What the fuck are you talking about? Go to sleep or go back to the bar.
Question: has anyone here ever used a gun in self-defense?
How did it happen? Was it hard to have the presence of mind to shoot? Did the attacker back down as soon as he saw a gun? Did you have legal trouble afterwards?
I’m just hoping I can get some real-life anecdotes. Where I’m coming from: I find the rhetoric about being a “citizen, not a subject” inspiring, I think it’s important that we have decent people in this country who are capable of protecting the vulnerable, and sooner or later I’d like to learn how to shoot. But I’d just like to know how self-defense plays out in real life, if anybody’s had experience with it. In other words, does it work in practice?
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
And if Tiger Woods Wife had a gun?
The majority of women I know are waaayyyy to emotional to have a gun.[/quote]
They’re too emotional to drive and vote also, but we still let them do that. How many people died in Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs invasion because women helped vote Kennedy into office based on his looks?
Hell, if we’ll let them do all that, what’s a few accidental discharges?
Still, we let them cook with rather sharp knives in the kitchen and husbands aren’t dropping like flies due to stab wounds. If they were, believe me, I wouldn’t be here. No one is talking about taking their kitchen knives away b/c they’re “too emotional” (esp. since we’d have no one but ourselves to make us sammiches if we did).
I never should have started this thread. LOL.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Still, we let them cook with rather sharp knives in the kitchen and husbands aren’t dropping like flies due to stab wounds. If they were, believe me, I wouldn’t be here. No one is talking about taking their kitchen knives away b/c they’re “too emotional” (esp. since we’d have no one but ourselves to make us sammiches if we did).
[/quote]
Hahahahahahahaha just because YOU have an even-keeled woman doesn’t mean we all do.
My girlfriend asks me all the time why we have to use plastic knives to cut steak, I just ignore her.
This pretty much settles the Gun debate.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know what you’re saying. But regardless, the Germans did strip their citizens of guns around that time. Hitler just kind of expanded the law. But the citizens were unarmed, that’s the point.
Try rounding up a well armed citizenry in order to put them in concentration camps. Not gonna work so well.
[/quote]
What happened is he took guns away from a very small part of the people and in fact over-armed the majority. That created an imbalance, a feeling of superior power (something that has been discussed here, that’s why I’m on this) and escalated. Think “Reichskristallnacht”, the point when people went against people, germans (and austrians, I’m ashamed to say) went against people, the jews (which, prior to that point, were austrians and germans as well…)
Also, the whole nazi army started as a paramilitary unit, that is, SA was a bunch of civilians and former soldiers that were over-armed and were inciting revolts (think 8.November in Munich… Hitler even was imprisoned for treachery) against the legitimate government.
This is going to be provoking in the current context, I know, but think a moment about which course history might have taken if Hess, Schaub and Hitler hadn’t have access to those guns…
Then, again, your own independence war against the british crown shows an exaple of how a people can liberate itself through the use of arms, I know. Not going to discuss that, though, since you brought up Hitler and (mostly) european history, so that’s my field.
[quote]
Man, I’m a liberal. I have criticized America a million times for those crimes and many more.
Right is right, wrong is wrong, no matter what time period it happened in.[/quote]
I know. Wouldn’t be discussing much if I thought you wouldn’t be reasonable (=liberal in my book). Also, I totally agree with you in that wrong is wrong. Not arguing on that.
It’s only a question of responsibility - no, let’s call that fault. Maybe I’m responsible for what happened in that I need to prevent it from happening again (as is everyone else, at least here in europe, IMHO), but it’s just simply not my fault that Mauthausens main overseer was austrian.
I won’t let anyone blame me (being 24 years old) for the terrible stuff that happened 60 years ago and wiped out half my family, especially not someone from a country that didn’t suffer in that war. No offense meant, really, but that kind of thinking (generalization) is what leads to racism, prejudice and racial hate. Quite something you as a liberal should avoid.
[quote]Valor wrote:
I rest my case.[/quote]
Do so, if you wish.
Anyhow, you’re overlooking a couple of points.
First off, we have only one city that boasts over a milion residents. That’s the capitol, Vienna. That’s also the place where almost all immigration took place, exclusively. Not all, but almost. There’s historic reasons for that, which I can elaborate if you wish, but I don’t think they’re all that important at this point. If you do the math, however, and calculate 3.5% of Austrias muslim population (not 4.2, we’ll take significantly less to reflect that “almost” factor), that’s 280.000. In a city with 1.697.982 residents, that’s approximately 16%, if I didn’t fail at doing the math. Which is more than any ethnic group apart from “white”, which I consider to be an over-generalization anyways, in the US.
Look, this ain’t supposed to be a contest or anything, just pointing out that statistics alone don’t really say everything.
Also, you guys have a black president - whom I greatly appraise, don’t get me wrong - who doesn’t get elected by 12.85%. (Ok, to make that clear again: I’m a big Obama fan. Of course there’s too many problems for him to solve single-handedly in the short time he’s been in the white house, but I consider him a great man and definately an enrichment for our time. Also, as a side note, I strongly believe that after fixing that social system of yours, he’ll be working for stricter guns laws.) So your cultural differences - as strong as they might be - didn’t keep a member of an ethnic minority to be put in charge.
Austria is a small country. Heck, you have cities that are bigger, population-wise, than my whole country. Anyhow, we’ve had a tradition of having well-known politicians (at least throughout europe) over the last couple of decades. Not well-known in a positive sense, mind you. People like Jörg Haider and his successor, H.C. Strache represent the right outer-wing and are an utter waste of oxygen. (Without offense, I have to add, though, that even some of your liberals seem to stand next right to them, not talking about your conservatives. Well, cultural differences, I guess. Comes down to all of us being commies 
). Those are the guys that keep racism, hate and fear burning for their own reasons.
Still, they get elected. Why? See above. There’s always been cultural tension in europe, but it never was as strong as today. There’s an almost religious discussion going on about wheter Turkey should be allowed to join the European Union or not. More often than not, this discussion is (on both sides) a more emotional one than a professional. You can see this trend in all of Europe, in the last european parlament elections, the biggest winner were the nationalist (you’d propably call them patriots), anti-immigration parties. You can look that up. In Switzerland, they’ve just forbade the construction of minarets, you can look that up, too.
Also, there’s lots of asylum seekers from former Yugoslawia, Chechnya, the Georgian republic and Africa. Those people live here in terrible conditions. Austria’s been reprimaned for that by the European union on a couple of occasions. You won’t find those people in population oriented statistics, of course, since they’re not considered immigrants. Still, they’re here. Not allowed to work, not being given sufficient support to live, but they’re here. Waiting for some clerk to approve or disapprove even their status as a refugee (that’s when they’re being put on a list and continue to wait for a decision on wheter they can stay in austria or not. Just now, there’s the case of Arigona Zogaj and her family, who have been to Austria since 2002 and are now (7 years later, the children have gone to school here. Arigona, in fact, is one year short of her A-levels.) forced to go back to Kosovo.
Those are all things that build up racial (cultural) tension that doesn’t relate to statistics only. Apart from Arigona, there was Edip Sekowitsch, a former pro boxer, who’s been stabbed to death in front of his pub by a Chechnyan (for the boxing fans amongst you, look up Sekowitsch. That guy is the true Rocky Balboa. With 50 years, he’s made a comeback and knocked out a 25 year old pro. Got stabbed shortly after that, unfortunately).
Still, we’re a safe country - the statistics will tell you that.
[quote]elano wrote:
How about Mexico? Home of the murder capital of the world and they have had very strict gun laws for the past 80 years.[/quote]
Watch “city of god”, a documentary about Brazil, or just take a look at Chechnya and you know what happens if access to guns is made easy in areas that are either politically unstable or have a high criminality rate even without guns.
It’s not hard to understand at all. Nobody wants to take away your right to defend yourself. The thing in question is if untrained people (or those with little training, think housewifes after a basic training) should own guns, and what the term “reasonable force” means. Quite frankly, shooting someone because he breaks into your house and steals your TV or your wife’s necklace isn’t exactly reasonable in my book.
[quote]
Legal gun owners aren’t the ones going around causing trouble so why punish them?[/quote]
Well, as I pointed out, it’s different here. Getting a gun illegally here is not easy and every gun-related murder (I’m talking about Austria here, mind you) is commited with a legally bought gun. (You can buy them here, legally, too, before you ask. It’s just stricter.)
[quote]Valor wrote:
You know, that’s why we have police. To uphold the law. That’s why they carry guns.
…
Thats actually NOT why we have police. In fact the SC has ruled that a police officer has NO duty to protect an indvidual.[/quote]
Here, it is. I can’t see why a country would disband a police officer from the duty to protect an individual, really. Sometimes, I can’t quite follow the logic of your supreme court - but then I can’t follow, ours, too, so I guess that’s why it’s handled by “experts”.
On the contrary, here, you can be sued even as a civilian if you fail to protect other individuals as far as your possibilities permit. For some average Joe Schmoe, that might just mean calling someone who can help (police, an ambulance, ERV, whatever).
For me, being a trained paramedic, lifeguard and martial artist, that means it’s my obligation to make use of my first-aid or water-rescue training if someone’s in distress. Also, if the situation permits it (I know, that’s down to subjective judgement), law demands me to act if I see someone attacked. There’s a paragraph in our code of law that regulates “self defense under involvement of a thrid party”.
But back on topic… what exactly are the duties of your police force, then?
[quote]John S. wrote:
This pretty much settles the Gun debate.[/quote]
Whoa, the punisher speaking there. Loved the film, especially the one with Dolph Lundgren, the old one. New one was ok, too.
This, is real life, though. Sorry, but that’s pathetic.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Stolen from my man Varq.
“Pick up a rifle, a really good rifle, and if you know how to use it well, you change instantly from a mouse to a man, from a peon to a caballero, and most importantly, from a subject to a citizen.”
= Jeff Cooper[/quote]
This is an interesting point for me. I acknowledge that there is a historic precedent here for the US regarding British sovereignty, however, how does this concept translate to the US today? You have a democratically elected president and your civil liberties are protected by a constitution and a sophisticated system of democratic governance.
Surely in America today the right to vote is what empowers you, not the right to tote a gun. What happens if you find yourself at odds with the decisions of a democratically elected government - are you going to stock up at the ‘Guns N Ammo’ store, barricade yourself in your home and declare your home an independent state?
It strikes me that such a concept is closer to anarchy.
[quote]Valor wrote:
You know, that’s why we have police. To uphold the law. That’s why they carry guns.
…
Thats actually NOT why we have police. In fact the SC has ruled that a police officer has NO duty to protect an indvidual.[/quote]
I must be missing something here. Please explain to me why we have police (and don’t tell me it’s just a ruse to give chubby white men a flash uniform so they can get laid more often).
I don’t know what the SC ruled but I think you’re taking a pretty obtuse interpretation of this point. “To Protect and to Serve”. The purpose of any police force (in a democratic country) is to uphold the law fairly. Laws are created through a system of government. The govermnent is elected by and accountable to its citizens. Laws serve to protect individual and collective rights. Therefore, in upholding the law (which they are duty bound to do), the police are protecting individuals and the their rights.
I’m interested by what you mean here…?
Look, this ain’t supposed to be a contest or anything, just pointing out that statistics alone don’t really say everything.
I agree.
Which is why I take such offense when people say: look at this nation, it has less crime compared to the U.S.
Or when people bring up those stupid WHO stats.
[quote]MightyCivil wrote:
[quote]Valor wrote:
You know, that’s why we have police. To uphold the law. That’s why they carry guns.
…
Thats actually NOT why we have police. In fact the SC has ruled that a police officer has NO duty to protect an indvidual.[/quote]
I must be missing something here. Please explain to me why we have police (and don’t tell me it’s just a ruse to give chubby white men a flash uniform so they can get laid more often).
I don’t know what the SC ruled but I think you’re taking a pretty obtuse interpretation of this point. “To Protect and to Serve”. The purpose of any police force (in a democratic country) is to uphold the law fairly. Laws are created through a system of government. The govermnent is elected by and accountable to its citizens. Laws serve to protect individual and collective rights. Therefore, in upholding the law (which they are duty bound to do), the police are protecting individuals and the their rights.
I’m interested by what you mean here…? [/quote]
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Complete Coverage: Monday’s Supreme Court Decisions
Forum: Issues Before the Supreme Court
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.