dieseltaylor Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 As the news media is being coy ... Following the failed attempt to buy firearms in Prague, he decided to obtain a semi-automatic rifle and a Glock pistol legally in Norway, noting that he had a "clean criminal record, hunting license, and a pump action shotgun Benelli Nova already for seven years", and thus obtaining the guns legally should not be a problem.[15] Upon returning to Norway, Breivik obtained a legal permit for a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic carbine, ostensibly for the purpose of hunting deer. He bought it in autumn 2010 for €1,400. Getting a permit for the pistol proved more difficult, as he had to demonstrate regular attendance at a sport shooting club.[17] He also bought 10 30-round magazines from a US supplier. In November, December and January he went through 15 training sessions at the Oslo Pistol Club, and by mid-January his application to purchase a Glock pistol was approved. Not directly relevant to the title of the thread but interesting to see what a force multiplier a semi-automatic rifle is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Not directly relevant to the title of the thread but interesting to see what a force multiplier a semi-automatic rifle is. Good example why we shouldn't allow anybody to own them as well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I'm waiting for the usual suspects to respond with... guns don't kill, people kill! No..... people armed with guns kill! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 My favourite is : "It is my constitutional right to be allowed to gun down a 15 year old who breaks into my house for a prank" Or the old nugget as uttered by Charlton Heston : "The can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers." Ironically, that is usually what happens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Our laws give the individual more power to defend himself, his family and property. Gun laws are quite liberal in the US. Check. Gun ownership in the US is quite high. Check. US laws "give the individual more power to defend himself, his family and property": I'll take your word for it. But, see, there's a problem. If the above is true, then there should be stacks of data about how well everyone is defending themselves. But there isn't. There's some anecdotal stuff, about how someones auntie's best friend's cousin's brother's girlfriend's uncle defended himself with a shotgun. Or maybe he was just talking about last night's episode of 24 ... it's a bit hard to tell, and maybe the story got mangled in the retelling. Instead the actual data tells us that in 2007 there were over 48,000 non-fatal injuries and over 30,000 fatalities caused by firearms [CDC data]. 78,000 separate incidents in which someone actually got shot. If you guys are so well armed, and the law gives you so much power to protect yourselves, WTF is going on? Are you just really useless at it? Or maybe having a gun is a really counter-productive form of self defence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, what is a better form of self-defense? And BTW, the "power" I was referring to in that statement you quoted was in reference to the circumstances under which lethal force could be used, not the means allowed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, what is a better form of self-defense? De-escalation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Appealing to a criminal's sense of fair play is a sucker's bet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Appealing to a criminal's sense of fair play is a sucker's bet. It* has worked everywhere else it's been tried. But let's say you're right, and America is exceptional. Tooling up isn't working. What else have you got? Jon * de-escalation. Not appealing to fairplay. That's just a feeble strawman. Shame on you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Appealing to a criminal's sense of fair play is a sucker's bet. Thats what I was thinking when the politicians were talking about the Murdochs/Brook etc. As you know I actually believe that what you see on the media [various] actually affects peoples view of life. Yes I believe advertising works! : ( So climate of fear and solving problems with a gun/violence might actually be seen as an advertisement of how life is - and how you need to act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It* has worked everywhere else it's been tried. But let's say you're right, and America is exceptional. Tooling up isn't working. What else have you got? Jon * de-escalation. Not appealing to fairplay. That's just a feeble strawman. Shame on you. No, it's not a strawman. And no, it hasn't worked everywhere else it's been tried. Shame on you for making that false claim. And as for your claim that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence regarding the effectiveness of using a gun to defend yourself, a 1979 Department of Justice study (Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities) found that when a female victim used a gun or knife to defend herself the percentage of attempted rapes that were successful were only 3% compared to 32% overall. The total number of times guns are used defensively is hard to pin down, in large part because in most cases in which they are nobody is shot, and in fact the gun is usually not even fired. Estimates range from a high of 2.5 million times per year to a low of 80,000 per year. In 1997 Tom W. Smith at Northwestern University School of Law did a study that put a reasonable conservative estimate at 256,500-373,000 defensive gun uses per year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Appealing to a criminal's sense of fair play is a sucker's bet. It isn't a mater of appealing to anything in the "the criminal" it is simple a matter of avoiding the conflict in the first place. Why would someone shoot me if I don't have a gun? If they simply wanted to kill me it would make any difference if I have a gun or not. If they point a gun at me to intimidate or rob me then I will be alive and intimidated or robbed, there is nothing I own that I value more than my life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 If they simply wanted to kill me it would make any difference if I have a gun or not. Really? It certainly seems to make a difference in preventing rape. The logic that guns are only useful to criminals doesn't compute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I wasn't suggesting guns are only useful criminals I was suggesting they are useful to nobody. As for rapes well you need to come up with a bit more than "estimates" or even "reasonable conservative estimates" Perhaps you might want to toss in the numbers of women who died because they had a gun and their assailant shot them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I wasn't suggesting guns are only useful criminals I was suggesting they are useful to nobody. That is... interesting. As for rapes well you need to come up with a bit more than "estimates" or even "reasonable conservative estimates" Out of 32,180 cases sampled, overall 32% were classified as rape and 68% as attempted rape. In cases where the victim "brandished" a gun or knife the numbers are 3% rape, 97% attempted rape. Perhaps you might want to toss in the numbers of women who died because they had a gun and their assailant shot them. They don't break it down into that level of detail. They do give an overall knife or gunshot wound rate at 3% for rapes and 2% for attempted rapes, but they do not break it down by type of resistance. They do note that women who resist in some way (they don't break it down by means) are more likely to be injured (beyond the rape itself) than those who do not resist. However, women who do not resist are far more likely to be raped. Among methods of resistance, which are broken down in this instance, gun/knife (they are lumped together) was by far the most effective at preventing the rape. However, almost anything worked better than nothing. Overall, when a woman attempted to protect herself in any way the rape was "not completed" in more than 4 out of 5 cases. When the woman made no attempt to resist the rape was successful 2/3 of the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Overall, when a woman attempted to protect herself in any way the rape was "not completed" in more than 4 out of 5 cases. When the woman made no attempt to resist the rape was successful 2/3 of the time. Ok so there you have it. If the woman resists in some way, gun or not she stands an 80% chance of not being raped. So they don't need guns. The only difference a gun would make is to make her assailant more scared and likely to shoot her. So better to scream or best yet kick 'em in the nuts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 80% for all methods of resistance combined. 97% for gun/knife specifically. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Problem with percentages is that they really don't tell the whole story. You need to look at how many of the assaults were defended with guns or knives. At a guess I would say very few, which would skew the figures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 No, it's not a strawman. Yes it is. It's practically the definition of a strawman. Magpie suggested de-escalation, in which access to firearms is harder - much harder - for everyone, meaning encountering firearms in any given hostile encounter becomes exceptional rather than expected. You misrepresented that as "appealling to a criminal's sense of fair play", and described it as "a suckers bet." That is a strawman because it create the illusion of having refuted [the] proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.Link. Specifically, Magpie was not talking about voluntary relenquishing of firearms, or expecting anyone to do it because 'it's the honourable thing to do', yet you misrepresented it as exactly that. The ref awards you one red card for Logic Failure, and forfeiture of the argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Wrong. That is my reason for thinking it would not work, i.e. the deescalation would have to be voluntary because it could not be imposed on the criminals. I never claimed Magpie thought it would be voluntary. This obviously speaks to our earlier difference of opinion on the feasibility of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals through legislation. The ref awards you a card for reading comprehension failure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It is no surprise that you refuse to recognise your own failures of logic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Magpie suggested de-escalation, in which access to firearms is harder - much harder - for everyone, meaning encountering firearms in any given hostile encounter becomes exceptional rather than expected. True enough but what I was really meaning is that if someone pushes you in a pub and says " 'oo you lookin' at?" you can say either of 2 things, " A complete twat !" or "Sorry mate" What happens next in each case will be different. In the first a barfight, in the second nothing he thinks he is king dick and you get back to your beer and your mates. If someone points a gun at you nothing will be solved by drawing your own gun and by the same token wide spread gun availability merely increases the prospect of guns being present in a confrontation. I've got one 'cos he's got one ignores the fact that he's got one because I've got one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It is no surprise that you refuse to recognise your own failures of logic. It's no surprise you refuse to admit you're blowing smoke. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Murders with firearms (most recent) by country # 1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people # 2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people # 3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people # 4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people # 5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people # 6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people # 7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people # 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people # 9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people # 10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people # 11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people # 12 Czech Rep: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people # 13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people # 14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people # 15 Macedonia 0.0127139 per 1,000 people # 16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people # 17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people # 18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people # 19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people # 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people # 21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people # 22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people # 23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people # 24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people # 25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people # 26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people # 27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people # 28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people # 29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people # 30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people # 31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people # 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Posted that almost accidentally whilst looking for accidental gun deaths, and suicides. I am concious that shooting a would-be assailant would not be included in murder figures! Or would it? ! An old study with all included The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows: U.S.A. 14.24Brazil 12.95Mexico 12.69Estonia 12.26Argentina 8.93Northern Ireland 6.63Finland 6.46Switzerland 5.31France 5.15Canada 4.31Norway 3.82Austria 3.70Portugal 3.20Israel 2.91Belgium 2.90Australia 2.65Slovenia 2.60Italy 2.44New Zealand 2.38Denmark 2.09Sweden 1.92Kuwait 1.84Greece 1.29Germany 1.24Hungary 1.11Ireland 0.97Spain 0.78Netherlands 0.70Scotland 0.54England and Wales 0.41Taiwan 0.37Singapore 0.21Mauritius 0.19Hong Kong 0.14South Korea 0.12Japan 0.05Culture plus access? Suicides feature very largely in European death figures with about 80% due to that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.