Frank Mir on Self Defense

[quote]FirestormWarrior 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]

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]

I posted a link to one of the SC rulings above. Beyond that if someone trys to harm me, you can bet I’ll be there…will there be a cop? Who the fuck knows.

[quote]Valor wrote:
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]

WHO stats? What do you mean? (Sorry, no native speaker)

Also, me remarking our crime rate was a direct counterevidence to the theory that seems to be commonly accepted in this thread that “less guns = more criminality”. Ain’t that way. No offense meant.

[quote]MightyCivil wrote:

[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]

Well, I’m a journalist… so if there’s anyone in the world who trusts ANY government official LESS than me, you haven’t found them. I hold no illusions about this country- it is absolutely corrupt from top to bottom, in every rung of the ladder.

The right to vote is only as meaningful as it’s allowed to be. Iraq had an election every couple years, Iran has an election, and it never helped them. Hell, zee Germans elected Hitler to power.

And honestly, our Civil Rights are not protected by the Constitution. Read the Patriot Act- Congress and George II completely disregarded the Constitution and any Civil Rights when they passed that law.

Rare is the country that just wakes up one day and is a freedom crushing dictatorship- it’s more like a slow slide into that. And if your vote doesn’t count and dissent can br crushed by force, as has happened in so many other countries over the millenia, there is no other recourse but violence.

Just because America is not at that point now doesn’t mean it never could be. I’m sure that people thought that the British would never be so beaten down as they are now, what with cameras on every corner and guns only in the hands of the government.

I am not one of those people that thinks that Violence never solves anything- it sure does. And honestly, just knowing that the citizens have as many guns as the government does should ensure that the government must be very, very careful in regards to what they do and how they do it… which is how it should be, because the power is SUPPOSED to lie with the people, not with the great mass behind the curtain that functions as the “The Government.”

You talked about the sophistacated system of checks and balances… well, a rifle is the ultimate check and balance against an overabusive government. That’s why I demand to keep them.

[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]

Listen, one of the best things I read on this was from the Self-defense author Marc Macyoung. As I remember, he said that police are not really there to protect you specifically- they are there to uphold the system as a whole. Police, themselves, are actually neutral.

A cop may investigate a break in at your home one day, beat you senseless at a protest a week later. They are neither friends nor foes, just something to take into consideration. They are aboslutely human, and prone to corruption on major levels.

The police (as well as the army) are the tools of the government. The cops are only as good as the people who are running that government.

will all the fucking foreigners quit bitching about AMERICAN gun laws. that’s what you guys are making yourself look like, fucking foreigners. i like my guns. and you can pry my 2nd Amendment and Sig Sauer from my cold dead hands. the argument of banning guns decreasing crime has been tried before- it won’t work in America. maybe in your small shit filled country. not in the good old USA- the best fucking country in the world. testosterone and pot are illegal, but people still use those things, so how’s it gonna be different with firearms.

i like red meat, booze, guns Lynrd Skynrd and Ted Nugent. America. Fuck yea.

sorry if I didn’t address your points in part or in full. I saw “in my country” and your location being listed as somewhere besides the US- ergo your opinions don’t matter.

Hmmm…Therizza mentioning Sig Sauer kind of sparked a thought:

I couldn’t help but think how a good portion of most popular firearms are made in Europe and/or by European manufacturers. I wonder how much profit of theirs is from the U.S. alone. I’m not insinuating those companies being responsible for how consumers use their products…just something to think about.

People always come up with borderline-conspiracies with government/companies making a buck off our obsessions and addictions,.i.e. illegal drugs,tobacco,illness,etc. Why wouldn’t firearms and our obsession with them be mentioned as well?? After-all…the biggest goal of a company is profit…right?

So is it far-fetched to say some people within the industry(and high-power associates) have interest in keeping demand for their product(firearms) so as to keep profits and stability?? I’m no conspiracy person and I know what I say is reaching out there…BUT it still is interesting and something to think about,at least.

Laugh if you want…it’s ok. But I will find you,and when I do…haha.

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Sorry, guys… but I’m coming from a country, where getting a gun is pretty hard. Still, we’re one of the safest countries in the world, crime-wise (look it up, it’s Austria).

Right next to us, there’s Switzerland. The Swiss are obligated by law to keep their military weapon at home. Go figure. There’s at least one gun incident there every day (again, it’s all in the statistics).
[/quote]

Coming from a country where it’s equally hard to obtain a legal firearm (Australia), ever since the ban and major lockdown on legal firearms, our gun crime and assaults in general have INCREASED.

As for Switzerland statistically… Last time I checked, they had some of the lowest crime and gun crimes rates in the world.

The problem isn’t firearms, the problem with banning legal firearms however is it only does just that: remove legally owned, registered firearms. The ban does nada to stop criminals getting their hands on a illegal firearm, as they would’ve done the exact same thing before the ban.

But also, our self defence laws here are shithouse. We have a “equal force” ruling. I.E if someguy tries to jump you, you can only use defend yourself in hand to hand. If he pulls a knife out, only then can you grab a rock to defend yourself. It’s ridiculous, it legally puts you on the reactive and waiting for your assailant to escalate the level of violence, which is how people get killed. Personally having had to walk down our some of our streets late at night, and having almost fallen into the trap of a gang, I’d feel much safer carrying a pistol, even if it was only to scare them off.

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
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]

Annecdote not exactly personal defense but applicable. I lived through an attack on my family when I was 19, although I wasn’t directly involved. My aunt had divorced her ex husband. He calls and threatens her so she goes to my grandmothers house, where my uncle also lived. The ex goes to her house and then goes to my grandmothers. (Rural and mountainous part of virginia) He gets there and rams here car in the drive ways. This woke me up, living about 400 yards away, its august and now AC so I was sleeping with windows open, about 5:45 am) Now I hear 3 pistol shots followed by 2 shotgun blasts. I am getting dressed and the phone rings, My mom answers and says that the SOB has shot my grandmother and uncle. Good news, they all survived, my grandmother was hit the arm and breast, but my uncle was shot through the chest which collapsed his lung and narrowly missed his spine resulting in intensive care for over a month. The police didn’t show up until the next day. My grandmother begged my uncle not to kill the ex, so he put his shotgun down. He opened the door and was shot at about 6 feet range. The assailant then tries to shoot my grandmother and aunt through the windows. My uncle though hit badly then shoots the shotgun (with birdshot) at the ex who has run behind a truck in the yard. My other aunt came out of her house and scares off the ex who runs away. At this point my mom and I arrive, and yes I have a loaded rifle with me. The police don’t show up until the next day to investigate.

The saying “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away” truly applied. There is no way they could have been there faster than 20 min at best.

Now some would argue that with stricter gun-laws the criminal wouldn’t have a gun to shoot them. Thats bs and you can only believe that if you choose to hold to your ideals in the face of reality. Bottom line, Guns are here, and they are here to stay. No legislation will get rid of them. 2nd, if a lowlife wants to harm someone, they will do it, police will not stop them. whether they use a knife, club, poison, or a car bomb, guns are only one choice. 3rd, a gun is an inanimate object, it does nothing of its own volition, only what it is made to do. It has no ethics, no morality, not conciousness.

My take, guns are tools (yes a weapon is a tool) similar to a knife. Some purposes my be beneficial. Preparing food, scapels for surgery, historically self-protection, butchering and on and on and on. Similar as mentioned, a gun serves only the purpose of killing another living creature. Absolutely. Can provide food, historically and even presently, (yes I hunt and eat what I shoot.) Can be used for personal defense. Can also be used in heinous crime. The gun is not evil or bad.

Good points Irish and Big Boss.

A small european country such as Austria cannot be justified in a macro policy decision in comparison to America. Thats like me saying “theres no crime in pittsburgh that banned guns…it will work for the other hundreds of millions of people in this country too!” You are much easier to micro manage. Like you said FW, your nation is one that is not even the size of an American city. This is especially true when it comes to diversity and racial tensions. Much of the gang warfare is blacks and lationos killing each other for power that is racially and financially motivated. See my next few paragraphs. Regardless what you say, you dont have the same racial problems that a few turks pose. Ive lived in Europe, yours is minor and transient.

Case in point. Washington DC. One of the biggest crime cities in the nation, greatly increased murders when a handgun ban was put into place. Furethermore, while living in London, youth gang violence was at an all time high and there was a huge knife problem. 16 people were killed in 2 months. Youth violence was on the rise, guns had nothing to do with this. I feel safer in drug riddled AMERICAN cities than I did there. Why? Because I can be armed. More so though, the nature of the crime, here it is usually criminals killing criminals, bystanders get killed by strays occasionally. There, robberies resulting in death are more common because the crime is lower stakes. If that makes sense. People attempted to rob me twice and tried to mug me once in Europe. Never happened living in the city of Pittsburgh for 5 years. The muggers also tried to kill me with a rock. Thankfully I got lucky and had training. Go on youtube, Uriah Faber was attacked in Bali indonesia by 12-16 thugs that didnt have guns who tried to kill him. Its a great story…

Guns are not a cause, they are a byproduct of a stupid ill thought drug war. We have a burgeoning economy that creates a false demand for illicit drugs due to constricted supply. This increases the profit motive and being that it is illicit, creates violence. Most of the deaths you will find are drug related. The guns are not the problem. Most of the guns used are illicitly obtained as well. The argument here is over LEGEALLY owned firearms. The real solution is fixing the stupid laws we have about the “drug war”. Not that this thread is designed to argue the merits or demerits of such law. Case in point the rise of gangs such as Al Capones using gun violence during the prohibition of alcohol.

I do think some of Mir’s points were a little far fetched, ie gun toting teachers and housewives, I do think peppers spray and tasers are much more viable alternatives for someone that does not have the time nor care to learn how to use a tool (gun) successfully. I wouldnt have a 5 year old using a circular saw on my house.

Well, I’m a journalist… so if there’s anyone in the world who trusts ANY government official LESS than me, you haven’t found them. I hold no illusions about this country- it is absolutely corrupt from top to bottom, in every rung of the ladder…

To me it isn’t a matter of trust… No one cares more about my well-being then me. I have a vested intrest in me. If you told me that if I gave up my gun crime would drop 90% but that I would be required to count on the government to protect me…I’d keep my guns.

To the poster that asked: Yes I have used a weapon in self-defense…though I’m not sure active duty is what you had in mind.

I will say this: i have avoided several situations in my life because I was armed.

[quote]Therizza wrote:
will all the fucking foreigners quit bitching about AMERICAN gun laws. that’s what you guys are making yourself look like, fucking foreigners. i like my guns. and you can pry my 2nd Amendment and Sig Sauer from my cold dead hands. the argument of banning guns decreasing crime has been tried before- it won’t work in America. maybe in your small shit filled country. not in the good old USA- the best fucking country in the world. testosterone and pot are illegal, but people still use those things, so how’s it gonna be different with firearms.

i like red meat, booze, guns Lynrd Skynrd and Ted Nugent. America. Fuck yea.

sorry if I didn’t address your points in part or in full. I saw “in my country” and your location being listed as somewhere besides the US- ergo your opinions don’t matter.[/quote]

You made me laugh. You’re a funny man.

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Good points Irish and Big Boss.

A small european country such as Austria cannot be justified in a macro policy decision in comparison to America. Thats like me saying “theres no crime in pittsburgh that banned guns…it will work for the other hundreds of millions of people in this country too!” You are much easier to micro manage. Like you said FW, your nation is one that is not even the size of an American city. This is especially true when it comes to diversity and racial tensions. Much of the gang warfare is blacks and lationos killing each other for power that is racially and financially motivated. See my next few paragraphs. Regardless what you say, you dont have the same racial problems that a few turks pose. Ive lived in Europe, yours is minor and transient.

Case in point. Washington DC. One of the biggest crime cities in the nation, greatly increased murders when a handgun ban was put into place. Furethermore, while living in London, youth gang violence was at an all time high and there was a huge knife problem. 16 people were killed in 2 months. Youth violence was on the rise, guns had nothing to do with this. I feel safer in drug riddled AMERICAN cities than I did there. Why? Because I can be armed. More so though, the nature of the crime, here it is usually criminals killing criminals, bystanders get killed by strays occasionally. There, robberies resulting in death are more common because the crime is lower stakes. If that makes sense. People attempted to rob me twice and tried to mug me once in Europe. Never happened living in the city of Pittsburgh for 5 years. The muggers also tried to kill me with a rock. Thankfully I got lucky and had training. Go on youtube, Uriah Faber was attacked in Bali indonesia by 12-16 thugs that didnt have guns who tried to kill him. Its a great story…

Guns are not a cause, they are a byproduct of a stupid ill thought drug war. We have a burgeoning economy that creates a false demand for illicit drugs due to constricted supply. This increases the profit motive and being that it is illicit, creates violence. Most of the deaths you will find are drug related. The guns are not the problem. Most of the guns used are illicitly obtained as well. The argument here is over LEGEALLY owned firearms. The real solution is fixing the stupid laws we have about the “drug war”. Not that this thread is designed to argue the merits or demerits of such law. Case in point the rise of gangs such as Al Capones using gun violence during the prohibition of alcohol.

I do think some of Mir’s points were a little far fetched, ie gun toting teachers and housewives, I do think peppers spray and tasers are much more viable alternatives for someone that does not have the time nor care to learn how to use a tool (gun) successfully. I wouldnt have a 5 year old using a circular saw on my house.

[/quote]

you should clean this up, your posting some racist shit here.
Or just say that your racist.

Guns and gun control - is always a busy topic, I guess I should not be so surprised
at Knee Jerk philosophers always turn this into a Debate.

If you like guns thats great, or if your not comfortable guns that fine too.
but whether you like guns or not- if your a gun owner you need to admit to yourself
that you are planning at some point to take someone’s life.
if its not a rifle its really not for hunting.

And you should be prepared to take what ever consequences arise from that.

[quote]chiro1 wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
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]

Annecdote not exactly personal defense but applicable. I lived through an attack on my family when I was 19, although I wasn’t directly involved. My aunt had divorced her ex husband. He calls and threatens her so she goes to my grandmothers house, where my uncle also lived. The ex goes to her house and then goes to my grandmothers. (Rural and mountainous part of virginia) He gets there and rams here car in the drive ways. This woke me up, living about 400 yards away, its august and now AC so I was sleeping with windows open, about 5:45 am) Now I hear 3 pistol shots followed by 2 shotgun blasts. I am getting dressed and the phone rings, My mom answers and says that the SOB has shot my grandmother and uncle. Good news, they all survived, my grandmother was hit the arm and breast, but my uncle was shot through the chest which collapsed his lung and narrowly missed his spine resulting in intensive care for over a month. The police didn’t show up until the next day. My grandmother begged my uncle not to kill the ex, so he put his shotgun down. He opened the door and was shot at about 6 feet range. The assailant then tries to shoot my grandmother and aunt through the windows. My uncle though hit badly then shoots the shotgun (with birdshot) at the ex who has run behind a truck in the yard. My other aunt came out of her house and scares off the ex who runs away. At this point my mom and I arrive, and yes I have a loaded rifle with me. The police don’t show up until the next day to investigate.

The saying “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away” truly applied. There is no way they could have been there faster than 20 min at best.

Now some would argue that with stricter gun-laws the criminal wouldn’t have a gun to shoot them. Thats bs and you can only believe that if you choose to hold to your ideals in the face of reality. Bottom line, Guns are here, and they are here to stay. No legislation will get rid of them. 2nd, if a lowlife wants to harm someone, they will do it, police will not stop them. whether they use a knife, club, poison, or a car bomb, guns are only one choice. 3rd, a gun is an inanimate object, it does nothing of its own volition, only what it is made to do. It has no ethics, no morality, not conciousness.

My take, guns are tools (yes a weapon is a tool) similar to a knife. Some purposes my be beneficial. Preparing food, scapels for surgery, historically self-protection, butchering and on and on and on. Similar as mentioned, a gun serves only the purpose of killing another living creature. Absolutely. Can provide food, historically and even presently, (yes I hunt and eat what I shoot.) Can be used for personal defense. Can also be used in heinous crime. The gun is not evil or bad. [/quote]

Firstly, this is a horrendous thing to have experienced, just happy that it wasn’t a worse outcome for your family members.

This does bring up an interesting point though. With domestic violence related offences it is often the case that the offender has no prior criminal record. By way of illustrative example, an honest, law-abiding member of T-Nation purchases a gun to protect himself and his family. He then comes home one day and catches his wife in bed with the neighbour. The red mist descends and our hurt and furious T-Nation pal collects his gun from the bedside drawer and shoots them both. 20 years later he’s being read his last rights whilst strapped on to a gurney awaiting a lethal cocktail of barbiturates and paralytics.

I see 2 solutions to this mess. Do what Frank Mir suggests and make sure that the wife and the neighbour are also packing weapons and trained in using them so they can have a shoot-out like at the OK corral…or…restrict everyone’s access to guns so at worst the above example would have been a case of fisticuffs or possibly a stabbing.

A point which may not have been given due consideration here is that many gun-related offences aren’t being committed by “criminals” but by everyday johns like you and me.

PS. This isn’t a “my country is better than yours” thread. I find it pretty surprising how defensive some of you are getting, you choose to interpret this as ‘america-bashing’ but it’s really not, there are plenty of Americans who advocate the same arguments the ‘foreigners’ have raised. I for one find it pretty interesting hearing other people’s views, especially when I don’t agree with them.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[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]

Listen, one of the best things I read on this was from the Self-defense author Marc Macyoung. As I remember, he said that police are not really there to protect you specifically- they are there to uphold the system as a whole. Police, themselves, are actually neutral.

A cop may investigate a break in at your home one day, beat you senseless at a protest a week later. They are neither friends nor foes, just something to take into consideration. They are aboslutely human, and prone to corruption on major levels.

The police (as well as the army) are the tools of the government. The cops are only as good as the people who are running that government. [/quote]

I agree with all of the above. The point still stands though, to say the police don’t have a duty to protect individuals is a pretty obtuse position. Clearly the police do have a duty to protect individuals as a by-product of their duty to uphold the law (I accept that the content of such laws and the manner in which they are upheld are equally relevant).

[quote]Therizza wrote:
sorry if I didn’t address your points in part or in full. I saw “in my country” and your location being listed as somewhere besides the US- ergo your opinions don’t matter.[/quote]

Don’t have time for the other posts now, I’ll do that later.
This one, however, is alarming. Is that just my sarcasm detectors not going of or are you actually serious about that?

[quote]MightyCivil wrote:

[quote]Therizza wrote:
will all the fucking foreigners quit bitching about AMERICAN gun laws. that’s what you guys are making yourself look like, fucking foreigners. i like my guns. and you can pry my 2nd Amendment and Sig Sauer from my cold dead hands. the argument of banning guns decreasing crime has been tried before- it won’t work in America. maybe in your small shit filled country. not in the good old USA- the best fucking country in the world. testosterone and pot are illegal, but people still use those things, so how’s it gonna be different with firearms.

i like red meat, booze, guns Lynrd Skynrd and Ted Nugent. America. Fuck yea.

sorry if I didn’t address your points in part or in full. I saw “in my country” and your location being listed as somewhere besides the US- ergo your opinions don’t matter.[/quote]

You made me laugh. You’re a funny man.[/quote]

I try my hardest to make everyone I encounter laugh.

[quote]MightyCivil wrote:

[quote]Therizza wrote:
will all the fucking foreigners quit bitching about AMERICAN gun laws. that’s what you guys are making yourself look like, fucking foreigners. i like my guns. and you can pry my 2nd Amendment and Sig Sauer from my cold dead hands. the argument of banning guns decreasing crime has been tried before- it won’t work in America. maybe in your small shit filled country. not in the good old USA- the best fucking country in the world. testosterone and pot are illegal, but people still use those things, so how’s it gonna be different with firearms.

i like red meat, booze, guns Lynrd Skynrd and Ted Nugent. America. Fuck yea.

sorry if I didn’t address your points in part or in full. I saw “in my country” and your location being listed as somewhere besides the US- ergo your opinions don’t matter.[/quote]

You made me laugh. You’re a funny man.[/quote]

I try my hardest to make everyone I encounter laugh.

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

[quote]Therizza wrote:
sorry if I didn’t address your points in part or in full. I saw “in my country” and your location being listed as somewhere besides the US- ergo your opinions don’t matter.[/quote]

Don’t have time for the other posts now, I’ll do that later.
This one, however, is alarming. Is that just my sarcasm detectors not going of or are you actually serious about that?
[/quote]

What would be alarming about this little tidbit? And why would it matter if I was serious or not?

Anyways, you’re from Austria, and so are Glocks. You see, I don’t really like Glocks. They are too light in my opinion, especially when firing anything above 9mm.

The point I was trying to get at is that banning firearms would serve to only empower criminals or people who otherwise acquire said firearms. Someone mentioned D.C.- it is a prime example of where it is illegal to own a pistol and yet has one of the highest murder rates in the US (world too?)

And finally- the biggest reason for accidental shootings is improper firearm handling. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

PS- Lighten up you foreign types!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Listen, one of the best things I read on this was from the Self-defense author Marc Macyoung. As I remember, he said that police are not really there to protect you specifically- they are there to uphold the system as a whole. Police, themselves, are actually neutral.

A cop may investigate a break in at your home one day, beat you senseless at a protest a week later. They are neither friends nor foes, just something to take into consideration. They are aboslutely human, and prone to corruption on major levels.

The police (as well as the army) are the tools of the government. The cops are only as good as the people who are running that government. [/quote]

This, in general, is true.

Cops in Mexico are corrupt and are part of the problem. Mexico, officially, is also highly anti self-defense because of its gun laws. You’re really not allowed to own anything bigger than a .38 there. Of course, there are guns everywhere because of all the Russians smuggling AK-style guns and all the deserters from the Mexican army (an estimated 150,000) who’ve taken their weapons with them. That said, criminals have plenty of access to guns and the cops are part of the crime problem. Who helps you there if you are in the process of being mugged/kidnapped/etc?

In the United States, I think we’re relatively blessed with our police (at least, compared to most of the rest of the world). Our cops also prefer the citizenry owning firearms. At least the ones I’ve talked to. Still, they don’t have a legal obligation to respond to an incident and usually show up after the fact to take a report and go look for the perp later.