A History Lesson

TomFetter said:
So in my city and region, the social contract appears to still be operating. The only things that need to fear my khuks are trees; the only use I'd have for firearms is hunting (and practice for it).

Obviously, other people's mileage varies - but even in Canada's major cities, violent crime follows pretty much the pattern of my town. There are exceptions to the rule, but most violence is still among spouses, or among rival criminal elements. Most of us do not have to face armed criminals.

If I lived where I had a reasonable likelihood of having to confront an armed criminal, I might arm myself against him. As it is, all that would need to fear my armed threat would be in-season wildlife, and paper targets.
Click to expand...

Oh my gawd! It just continues! If my ears burst, Tom, I'm going to be blaming YOU!............. LOL! ;)

This view of because one lives in a percieved less dangerous area that the chances are miniscule that a bad guy (or gal) will ever harm you or your loved ones,..................... well, let's just say that I feel that to be just as naive a thinking as your previous posts were.

We don't live in bubbles, we tend to travel, so your safe zone will not always be your environment.
Yes, I agree that there are areas that one may more easily encounter trouble in, but even in what you consider a "safe zone", things can happen to you (ever hear of............ "never say never"?).

I've legally carried a handgun for many years, and I hope that I will never need to pull it out to defend myself or family, but at the same time, I have physically and mentally prepared myself to do just that if that moment ever comes my way.

I will most likely die from desease, age, accident, or what have you, before I ever encounter a situation that may require me to use my firearm against another human being,.............. but again, never say never.

At this point I can't be too concerned on who else around the world has lost or is losing their gun rights. Why do I say this,............ because the most important line in the sand for me is my own country, and we have been struggling for a long time to hold the anti gun rights activists at bay. We have our hands full in this battle as it is :(
 
Hope those ears will be OK, JJ. Sounds like you could read in a dark room, just about now ...:D

I worked about 10 or 12 years back as a caseworker with kids in the youth justice system. Small time, petty thieves - car theft, some drug stuff, break-and-enter. This was when I lived in Edmonton, about 850,000 people, rather than the 45,000 population city I'm in now.

These kids, to an individual, had no firearms when they committed their crimes. Knives, sure. Bats, wrenches, whatever. We're not angels up here. But while the bigger-time crooks both had and could get firearms when they needed, the usual thugs that would be ripping off your or my television set, lifting your or my car, robbing convenience stores ... had no guns.

Recently, that's started to change a bit in Toronto, and to a lesser degree Montreal and Vancouver. But we still have a pretty small dispersal of firearms among the people who'd be most likely to want to carry them for doing ill. That's just fact.

So yeah, I'm naive ... but not as naive as all that. I just live in what sounds like a different place, with a different level of risk. I have much greater risks to face from winter driving conditions ... or hitting a moose on the highway (a 16 year old girl died in such a collision this morning) than from a bad guy with a gun - I'm much better off spending my time preparing for the risks I'd be more likely to face. In my personal context, the scales simply balance out in a different way than they do in your context.

BTW, I could probably find a hat, to help with that ear thing ... :D
 
TomFetter said:
Hope those ears will be OK, JJ. Sounds like you could read in a dark room, just about now ...:D

I could probably find a hat, to help with that ear thing ... :D
Click to expand...

Oh you M-, I mean, you S-- of a.............HMMMMMMMMMM, Ah, let me just say.............. No thank you, but the hat offer is greatly appreciated............ :)

LOL! ;)

We are definitely on different pages when it comes to a free mans right to be able to legally own a firearm.

All's I can say is................ Thank Gawd for the American Constitution and our Bill of Rights! :D

I do thank Canada........................ for their petroleum, Shania Twain, and especially for giving us "The Duke" (John Wayne).......... LOL! ;)
 
alberich said:
I'm not quite sure I understand but shortly:


4) 1968 an attempt to localy reform communist party. Reform was stopped violently by a Warsaw pact invasion. Some Czech soldiers tried to resist, but they were defeated. Russian tanks in Prague. From this time on, Red army was permanently installed in Czechoslovakia.

So your guide was likely talking about the 1968.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are right about that.
 
... and as I said in my first post, I've owned and used firearms, and likely will again. I'm really not telling you to get rid of yours. We simply have a different view on why we should own them ... reflecting, as you point out, some differences between our two countries.

Best wishes JJ, I always appreciate your posts.

t.
 
TomFetter said:
... and as I said in my first post, I've owned and used firearms, and likely will again. I'm really not telling you to get rid of yours. We simply have a different view on why we should own them ... reflecting, as you point out, some differences between our two countries.

Best wishes JJ, I always appreciate your posts.

t.
Click to expand...

Thank you, sir, I appreciate that :)
 
JimmyJimenez said:
I sure did not want to re-enter this thread............. I wanted to prevent my ears from turning red again........ but................. TOO LATE!........... LOL! ;)


I was doing a good job of staying away, but then I just had to read TomFetter's post,................... causing my ears to turn to a red glow again............ LOL! ;)


Even then, it would never stop all from comiting their crimes. You could still find yourself in a situation where the cops are too far away, un-accessible, or whatever, and the firearm could be the tool that can save you and your family lives.

It's hard to try to rationalize with folks that think that we as humans have evolved so much, that we civilians no longer should have access to firearms because we have the police/government to do that for us, ("just call the cops" mentallity). That no longer, in our 21st Century world, would it be possible that the people running our Government could ever run totally afoul. Hitler's Germany was a thing of the past, it could never happen in our civilized Nation. That we are so powerful, and will always be, that we could never ever be invaded by outside forces on our own homeland. That we would never have to actually try and help out in defending against such a foreign invasion. People that think that only the elite and government should be allowed to own guns. That the average law abiding citizen should not be allowed this right.

Yup, enough to make one's ears glow red!....................... ;)
Click to expand...

Jimmy,

I am with you 100%. If you read the comments and realize where people are from, then you might understand their points of view. I once took Japanese and our instructor, a woman whom I was quite fond of, showed us an old film(I would say the 60s) about why crime was so low in Japan and how the police there solved a majority of the cases. You have to know about the history of Japan somewhat and their culture. In their feudal society, the samurai were the only ones allowed weapons, and in modern times this has carried through to their police and military. They pretty much have carte blanche and an alleged criminal is guilty until proven innocent unlike our system. Danny in Japan should sound in on this.

Anyway, the methods, and power, the police had to go about their investigation would never fly in the U.S. - and many more than the ACLU would complain. Our instructor thought it was great, most of us just frowned realizing how our society would be if we were to go "Japanese."

Who was it that said: "Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither." And that is what most often happens.

Much of our opinions about politics, religion, and whatever else have at least some cultural roots. The Canadians had a tradition of not allowing those "troublemaking" handguns since their early history - and guess what? that is what most of them feel today.

Let them go their way, and let's go our way. The Europeans that I respect the most are the Swiss. Almost all males serve in the armed forces and are in the reserves until middle age - and they get to take their duty rifle home. Now that is a MILITIA!
 
hdwrlover said:
Let them go their way, and let's go our way. The Europeans that I respect the most are the Swiss.
Click to expand...

The Swiss aren't Europeans, they're Swiss ;) - Europeans are elected members of the European Union.

Almost all males serve in the armed forces and are in the reserves until middle age - and they get to take their duty rifle home. Now that is a MILITIA!
Click to expand...

We also have a militia in Sweden and those that are in it are required to take their service rifles home.

I still don't see how quoting figures of totalitarian genocide in 3rd world countries has anything to do with defending one's home from criminals. If you feel the need to justify why you own firearms, then you should quote stats on the efficacy of owning handguns in preventing violent crime?

From the FBI: "In Philadelphia, homicides jumped from 330 in 2004 to 377 in 2005, a 14 percent increase, according to the FBI. Murders climbed from 272 to 334 in Houston, a 23 percent rise, and from 131 to 144 in Las Vegas, a 10 percent increase." - What do these numbers mean in terms of personal safety? Probably nothing, just like the figures quoted in post #1.
 
Well, if I could scrounge up John Lott's book, I could cite that when 'shall issue' concealed carry laws are inacted, violent crime drops. Then we could glance at Great Britain, and note that restrictions and bans on weapons were followed by a rise in crme.


munk
 
Tom F.

Thanks for the good discussion.

yes, the Bp is better!.

usually, not enough sleep and too much caffeine cause problems!

:D

Tom
 
PS Without question, the violence and other problems in our country DO speak volumes about the health of our State.

Tom
 
munk said:
Well, if I could scrounge up John Lott's book, I could cite that when 'shall issue' concealed carry laws are inacted, violent crime drops. Then we could glance at Great Britain, and note that restrictions and bans on weapons were followed by a rise in crme.
Click to expand...

I read that in places where "shall issue" CCW laws were inacted, this was because crime was already virulent and that SI CCW was the last solution to curb the crime. Therefore any short term stats where more likely attributed to the statistical curve in crime patterns than the efficacy of CCW's.

Whatever the result though, this study has more bearing and relevance to one's daily security (if the study is in one's area) than hutus /tutsis with machetes.
 
Glad to hear about the Swedish militia. It would be inetersting to read some about that, as well as the Swedish experience in WWII. They certainly had the coolest Mausers!

Sweden will be forever honored in my thoughts, out of respect for Gustavus Adolphus. I Imagine(without any proof!) that maybe some of my Scotch Irish ancestors might have served in his army.

Tom
 
Great!! It turns out that the "Swedish Militia" is some kind of punk band!!

:mad: :(

I guess you have to be careful with google!

Tom
 
Here's a link to the militia site in English, albeit badly translated :) : http://www.hemvarnet.mil.se/?lang=E

"The home Guard has its roots in the local militia groups of former times. Our present Home Guard was organized following a decision by the Riksdag (our parliament) in May 1940.

World War 2 had started a huge rearmament of the Armed Forces and almost all able men were for long times away from home for training and guarding of our boarders. Thus the people strongly demanded forces for the protection of their homes and families.. Till this point, in modern times, voluntary armed units had not been allowed in Sweden. In December 1940 the Home Guard comprised 90 000 young and old men and other men not being drafted.

In the beginning the units were very simply equipped. no uniforms and few arms.. and had easy tasks to carry out.

There has been as many as 120 000 soldiers (in 1986) in the H G. Today the strength is 50 000 including 11 000 contracted personnel from the voluntary defence organizations.

Home Guard soldiers of today have modern equipment, uniforms and arms. The personal kit, for example the assault rifle, is kept at home."
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm....you got Hootzie Tootsies carrying big blades?


"I read that in places where "shall issue" CCW laws were inacted, this was because crime was already virulent and that SI CCW was the last solution to curb the crime. Therefore any short term stats where more likely attributed to the statistical curve in crime patterns than the efficacy of CCW's.

Whatever the result though, this study has more bearing and relevance to one's daily security (if the study is in one's " Nordic Viking

Lott has States without the shall issue CC to compare to those that are, and stands firm on the correlation between armed citizenery and reduction in crime. He also has some conservative estimates of crime prevented by fireams. Within the field of statistics, Lott has been given awards and praise. He's well respected. I believe he's answered peer review well.


Yes, it has more relevance with 'daily security'. Societies which are well established, and family units respected and in good health, have better crime stats than in places with more turmoil. If you want to prevent murder, that is the place to start. The out of wedlock birthrate in America for some minorities was about 70% in one year tested I know of.

munk
 
Bill Marsh said:
ROTFLMAO!!!!

04/27/06 - Senate Date Signed by Governor

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse as a defense to certain crimes, so as to provide that a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; to provide that such person has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force; to provide for an immunity from prosecution; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.


"Every thing they say we are, we are! And we are very proud of ourselves!"
---------------------------------- Jefferson Airplane
Click to expand...

Florida has a similar "No Retreat" law.

That and the "Castle Doctrine" are both good things.
 
jmings said:
I don't have anything against weapons BUT there are caviats:
I want the laws against who can have weapons enforced:
* Convicts.
* The Insane.
Click to expand...

Why not enforce our laws against the 12 million illegal aliens in this country?

How did they get a free ride here? How did they get virtual immunity?

One illegal that was arrested 14 times in this country, and still allowed to stay here, finally killed an American couple. Tell me he was just misunderstood.

The Florida police are instructed not to arrest illegals. But they would ticket or arrest me in a heartbeat. You see, I am a white English speaking native born American. I am fair game.
 
Good thread. Good views. Strong feelings

But, if it should ever come down to someone having to use force in a lawless situation (a fight for survival - Katrina type scenario perhaps) it won't be long before order is restored and the person that fought to survive will be treated like a heinous criminal and taken in by the law and his/her life ruined.

Does anybody here really and truly believe that they could use force in this country and not pay dearly for it?
 
The Korean Grociers who stood with their weapons defending their stores were not charged with anything.



munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top