Gun laws.

[Mathurin]

Gun shows are not entirely what they have been represented as.
You have to understand our nations "registration" system.
there are stronger systems which are state based, and any change of ownership must be declared or cleared or whatever.
However, under the national system, to prevent government abuse but still allow tracking of firearms used in crime the records are kept by the gun store, these dealers often go to gun shows and they require the same NICS check as the gun shop.

BUT, private sales do not have to be cleared through a NICS check, no matter where they occur, because to require such a check is a invasion of privacy.
individuals who realize they have too many guns dont hold a garage sale, they go to a gun show.

Still, surveys of prisoners show that something like 1.5% of criminals get their guns from gun shows.
Gun shows are for connoisseurs of guns, expensive well made items that can take thousands of round of practice fire.
Criminals want cheap guns, they dont spend much time practicing so durability is not important, they tend to only point-shoot, so accuracy is not important.

And, gun guys are not ruthless capitalists, they wont sell just because you wave cash at them.

 

[Saevus]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

Well, the basic premise is that whilst Joe and Jane average would give up their guns because they're law abiding citizens, criminals are not, so they wouldn't walk into a police station and hand their gun over (big surprise).

People seem to think that police won't be able to do shit about armed criminals, so they think armed homicides will increase.

But people forget that if everyone doesn't have a gun, then no one has any real reason to actually shoot anyone, when they could just knock 'em out... because they won't be afriad of them having a gun.

Copter: there is no 'equation', there is cold reality. In the UK, banning handguns caused gun violence to double. Banning handguns in Jamaica led to out of control gun violence. Enacting more restrictive gun laws in Hawaii resulted in a sharp increase in violent crime.

Think about Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Now imagine that with handguns instead of alcohol or drugs.

Booze, even if no one had a gun, that would not change things. In the UK, where guns are extremely difficult to get, the result has merely been that everyone stabs each other to death, or gangbeat each other. Why? Because lowering the technology level that gangs fight with does not stop gangs from fighting. And it doesn't make John Doe hate that sonofabitch banging his wife any less.

 

[Mathurin]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

Well, the basic premise is that whilst Joe and Jane average would give up their guns because they're law abiding citizens, criminals are not, so they wouldn't walk into a police station and hand their gun over (big surprise).

People seem to think that police won't be able to do shit about armed criminals, so they think armed homicides will increase.

How would we ever come to that kind of conclusion
Oh yeah, we have armed criminals and the cops dont seem to do shit about them!!

But people forget that if everyone doesn't have a gun, then no one has any real reason to actually shoot anyone, when they could just knock 'em out... because they won't be afriad of them having a gun.

So before guns existed, criminal enterprises consisted of "knocking out" people?

This is the kind of naive statement that makes gun control advocates seem silly.

You have to actually understand why people kill people.
Gang violence
interpersonal conflict
drug deal gone bad
Pyschos
etc.

If a would-be robber thinks that a homeowner is armed, they generally dont rob the house, they are a robber, and nothing about possession of a firearm makes them anything else, they dont want to die (for obvious reasons) but they dont want to kill (the cops will search harder)

oh yeah, outside the movie world it is difficult to knock someone out without causing serious injury.

 

[Saevus]

Gun laws need to be judged by the merit of keeping people safe. Are we safer if everybody is armed and ready to kill? My base instinct says no but maybe I'm too pessimistic of my fellow citizens to control themselves. But as to the argument 'we need to protect ourselves' I say bullshit. Don't know if anyones noticed but militaries have gotten just a tad bit deadlier since 1776 what with tanks, bomber planes, artilery that can kill 50 miles away, chemical weapons and even if the rebels can take over a city or even a state what are you going to do when the nukes come for you? If your naive enough to think a guy like Chaney wouldn't blow up NYC to root out his enemies you'd be in for a shock.

You're strongly underestimating insurgency.

 

[T.H.O.R]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.


Whenever we visit my Half brother in America (fairly often, as I am now an international pilot, and visiting is cheap) we often go out to the firing range, my wife included, and let loose some rounds. It's a fun time, and my once 'gun-fearing' wife is now able to put 3 rounds into a controlled target with ease. Something that might have never happened had I not convinced her that guns were something to be respected...and that it's not some snake waiting to bite you should you try to touch it.

I understand that there will always be those who fear what they don't understand. And of course there will always be the pacifist side to any argument. I'm not saying that you're wrong for disliking guns, I just don't understand why you seem to think that just because you don't like them, everyone else should have to suffer by losing more of their [American] Constitutional Rights to own them.

Just remember, that even if you get rid of all of the guns, missiles, and nuclear warheads; Humanity will ALWAYS find a way to make tools for murder and destruction.

 

[wgreer25]

Thanks Silvertounge for taking this discussion to a different thread. I hated making these comments on a completely incorrect forum. I agree with you that there are WAY too many guns in genreal in America. But the VAST majority of those are in the wrong hands. I only wanted to make the point that the politicians here need to have their heads examined when the try to make it more difficult to buy a gun if you are a good law-abiding citizen, because they are not doing it the right way. There were plenty of red flags for the VT shooter that should have gone off and not allowed him to buy a gun. A court had said that he was mentally unstable and might be a danger to himself. The political knee jerk reaction to just ban outright (which the supreme court overruled) is too blind an not thought out. Example, New York City. It is virtually impossible for a law abiding citizen to buy and carry a handgun in NYC. You have to pay over $600, take many courses and appear before a judge and explain why you need it. Why would you need it, maybe because New York is one of the #1 citys for gun crimes. But how can that be with all the restrictions. See, gun laws don't work. The innocent law-abiding citizens have no protection. I live in the south, and yes there are tons of gun loving rednecks here in the South, and guess what, most of them are great people who are extrememly responsible with their weapons (I hate the redneck stereotype). I have a carry permit. I carry every day. I had to go though training and prove I know what I am doing. I hope to God I never have to use it.

Where I think you need to be a little more understanding is that as a citizen in the States, you don't have any feeling of safety. Crime is out of control. There is no value for human life. Is it because of the HUGE drug problem here, maybe? A soldier on leave from the "war" was shot in his hometown for the $5 in his wallet. When I walk the streets in my city, I know there are people out there who would kill me for what I have. I want the tool to protect myself and the ones I love, and the good people around me. Example...

http://conservativeculture.com/2007/12/church-shooting-update-carry-conseal-permit-holder-saves-lives

I hope you never have to experience some of the things I have, but knowing what is out there, I should never be denied the ability to protect myself. Someone else mentioned an IQ test for gun ownership, I think more testing for legal gun owners is fine. But not outright bans. It is a tool that our enemies (criminals) have that victims are not allowed to have. I don't think that every person here should own a gun. But we should have the ability if we are willing and able. The current gun laws just make it hard, and on the wrong poeple. I don't know what the magical cure is to get guns out of the hands of criminals is, but what we are doing now isn't working.

Saevus also makes a good point. Do think the Chinese government would be able to do the horrible things it does if it's society was armed?

As to stopping crime. Current gun laws sure arn't helping. Gun crimes are committed in "gun free" zones everyday. The city I live in, a public park (no guns allowed), a woman was kidnapped at gunpoint and raped (she lived). The sense of punishment is gone in our country. You can serve as little as 3 years for manslaughter. Is this the problem? Someone else mentioned the complete disreguard for human live here. Oh boy is that true. See the comment above about the soldier. What is the cure for this? If it is drug craze that drives most crime, maybe focus more on that. I don't know. It's to big a problem, I just want to be able to protect myself and my family.

By the way: It is nice to be able to have an intelegent discussion on a forum. I have noticed that many of the escapist people have informed decisions and don't seem to be illiterate tards. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this topic.

 

[T.H.O.R]

Also, not to belay the seriousness of your example wgreer.

But I always find myself chuckling when they say "Saved 100s of lives" as if the gunmen are always carrying over 100 rounds.

By probability the average gunmen usually carry a single pistol. They MIGHT be carrying 2-3 8/15 round magazines depending on the gun, and caliber. At most, that's 60 shots. The typical gunman isn't very well trained; will probably miss on several of those shots, and being slightly mentally degraded (as you pretty much have to be to take an innocent human life) the gunman will probably fire multiple shots at a single target...

So realistically speaking, only an average of 20 lives were at stake. NOW please don't take that wrong. 20 lives are as valuable as 100 lives, and I'm not trying to weigh the value of a human life here. I just wanted to point out a more realistic view.

Perhaps what should be said in the future is "Many lives were saved, and many were saved from the mental anguish and shock that accompanies witnessing a shooting"


That being said. I still stand very firmly behind my original post, this is just something I wanted to point out about the exaggeration of the media.



*DISCLAIMER* This is all very opinionated here, and loosely based on experience. I have no statistical numbers.

*DISCLAIMER 2* This is also not taking into account terrorism, or the not-so-average gunman that carries an assault rifle, or brings friends.

 

[John Galt]

How a tool is used is all about outlook. Sweden, Norway... guns up the ass, only 2% of registered guns are used in crimes (If I remember the Wiki page correctly).
Why? Because, they are seen as tools.

It's all about the knowledge. We humans are based upon knowledge, it's the crux of our survival and power.

If people are taught to understand death, realise that guns kill what you point them at and that ending a life over an object is just stupid, we might have a better future.

I agree, I think it is a problem with society itself rather than the firearms. Much of my family owns guns, however, we're civil well adjusted people who occasionally like to take out frustrations on paper targets and the occasional wild boar. I think that if we could use our terror-spewing media to help reeducate people about the value of human life versus the value of an insult or object, we might actually see some improvement. People don't commit crimes because of guns, people commit crimes for a plethora of other reasons, some are faults within the individual, and some are faults within society. Instead of banning guns, we should try to address as many social issues as possible, so people don't feel like they have to kill over something so petty.

 

[Saskwach]

I feel like talking about the post that started this so here goes.
I'm big on proving something before believing it (perhaps that means you aren't just believing it but we'll leave that for another time). To prove that gun control in America is worth doing you have to prove a few things:
a)Gun crimes are deadly and make crime easier than it should be.
b)Gun crimes would be a lot less common if we outlawed guns.
c)The expense in outlawing guns-buying back/rounding up hundreds of millions of guns in America- would reduce crime more than any other expenditure with the same money could achieve.
Now let's look at whether this is true.
a) You're looking pretty good here.
b) Here's where it gets murky. As was said in the OP's quote, more than 98% (I thought the figure was around 90% but it's the same idea) of gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons. These guns will be smuggled in and sold whether guns are legal or not. However, there is this 2-10% of crimes (depending on which figure we're working with) that are done with legal weapons, as with your examples of school shootings. It could be argued that banning guns would thus cut down gun crimes by 2%. But. Would gun crimes, or even normal crimes, stay at their current figures when a criminal can be assured that his law abiding target won't have a gun themselves? In other words, would crime in general go up because criminals now feel safer? Let's be unfairly fair and say no; criminals act as normal despite hundreds of millions of weapons being taken off the street, and all from legal owners. So it's perfectly logical, then, to buyback all these millions of guns.
c)But taking guns back costs money. Even if the government didn't repay citizens for the guns they legally acquired (which I seriously doubt) the cost of this operation would be enormous. I'm going to make some assumptions here, and they're all very conservative.
1.Guns are bought back and not just taken back.
2.Buying back a single gun, including compensation for the owner, bureaucracy, transport, destruction, the inevitably monstrous class action suit, etc costs $1000 US.
3.There are now 200 million legal guns (as of 1994 there were nearly this many in America [http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt]).
4.This program would not increase crime rates at all.
That means the program would cost, in total- and so conservatively these numbers are practically a joke- 200 billion dollars to cut 2 per cent of gun crimes. Can you think of no other way to cut 2 per cent of gun crime with that 200 billion?

None of this means I'm against gun control. I don't see any good reason why the average person should have military grade automatic weapons. Mandatory background checks are good (though I'm told while many such laws are in place, the system is faulty- anyone know of this?). I just don't believe buying back all legal guns will fix the gun problem as it is now.

 

[Silver]

Another essay coming up Why does it seem like all of my posts are really long?

People who reason that way is what is wrong with America today, and what has turned it, wait a minute, America has never been good, that has kept America from evolving like the rest of the world. That has kept America from advancing. There's a bloody reason almost all famous serial killers come from that country. America is a horrific country, an example of what happens when a country goes bad. A warning to the rest of the world.

It wouldn't be impossible. It happens every day in the rest of the world. The parts that it seems are marked as "here be dragons and communists" on American maps.

Americans applaud the odd, the rebels, it is good to be unique.
Other nations value conformity, social norms are enforced more heavily.

Applaud the odd and rebels perhaps. But not people who are different. People with deviating sexuality or people from different countries, or religions. That's what I meant, and that's the kind of people that in many, if not most places in America will have a hard time fitting in an being accepted.

Saevus, that assault weapons are only used in less than 2% of crimes is beside the point. It was most likely an example.

Why is that beside the point? Much gun control is directed towards controlling those 'dangerous assault weapons'. Clinton's AWB, the FOPA...

Stop dodging points and argue them, if you're so certain of your convictions.

Okay, just couldn't skip commenting on this one. It's beside the point because to me the model of the gun that is used to kill wouldn't matter much. And it doesn't matter in most other situations either.

Imagine there was a shooting in a local bar of a city. A fight breaks out between two men, both drunk. A few minutes later, the fight is broken up by the bartender, and one leaves. He returns a few minutes later, armed with a M249 SAW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_Squad_Automatic_Weapon

Now tell me, if he were armed with a different weapon, say a Glock 17, which weapon would have a larger shock value?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_17

It's like bringing a bomber to a gang fight; the weapon determines how important the case is when compared to the thousands of other crimes.

And while you are correct in that no matter what weapon it is, it still kills, if the same bar in the example above was destroyed by a tank rather than ravaged by gunfire, which scenario would catch your attention?

Don't lie, flipping through the TV channels or browsing an internet website, the tank is going to catch your attention. Now that we've established which is more important, then we must determine which scenario is more shocking.

Since tanks aren't exactly easy to get in the United States, more manpower and effort are going to be put into investigating how the criminal did it. If it turns out to be some black market source, most likely the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and maybe some branch of the United States Military will come together and start working on an in-depth investigation.

Let's say a few months later, the task force finds out that the black market source is part of some larger orginization which can supply any buyer with weapons availible only in Western countries. They have copies of blueprints military assets, such as the B-2 Bomber, F-117 Nighthawk, F-22 Raptor, the M1A2 Abrams, the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser, and the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb.

Several months later, the task force discovers two traitors in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have been selling information to the orginization. Obviously, the entire nation will now take notice in how a simple destruction of a bar has led to a mistrust of the leader's of the nation's military. And since the weapons they had availible were enough to start a coup, funding of the Central Intelligence Agency has increased, along with many other changes.

The above scenario, while entirely fictional and most likely never going to happen, shows how the weapon can make all the difference. Exaggerated extremely, of course, but sometimes people don't understand the simple truth, and must be shown an exaggerated version, in order for the extreme gravity of the situation to sink in.

By the way, that's probably an entire movie plot right there.

Yeah, a SAW would be worse. A glock would still kill people. Hell, why don't we equip the gunman with some dragon skin, a kriss and a couple of handgrenades?

Because it isn't relevant. Sure, the threat is bigger, but this isn't about how big the threat is. The family of the guy we was brawling with isn't going to care if he killed by a Desert eagle or a colt (or they might if they want an open coffin). Sure, if someone were to run in with a KRISS or a SAW more police would get involved. That doesn't change the fact that people were killed. If he didn't have a gun, any gun, in the first place we wouldn't have to deal with it.

Someone brought up perception earlier, and I want to do so again. In America one murder doesn't matter. It matters a lot if a killer uses a SAW and kills twenty people instead of someone using a handgun ad kills a single person. Comparing that to Sweden, with it's much healthier outlook on guns, we had a "serial killer" here once. Called the laserman, because of his use of lasersights which was the only clue he left. He killed one (1!) person and wounded around ten during several months. That's as bad as it gets here. There was a young man called Ricardo that got killed in gang violence last year, people still talk about it. It made the news for several months. Police got involved, they shut down subway stations, people starting patrolling as nightwatches.

Perhaps it is only my perception that is off, perhaps one murdered person in America doesn't matter. Perhaps an armed gunman isn't that dangerous, or a threat to society. To me it is. Equipping ordinary people with guns is begging for trouble. They're tools, and not for killing other humans.

How a tool is used is all about outlook. Sweden, Norway... guns up the ass, only 2% of registered guns are used in crimes (If I remember the Wiki page correctly).
Why? Because, they are seen as tools.

It's all about the knowledge. We humans are based upon knowledge, it's the crux of our survival and power.

If people are taught to understand death, realise that guns kill what you point them at and that ending a life over an object is just stupid, we might have a better future.

This is what I'm talking about, just this. Thank you.




I understand that the situation in America is worlds away from the situation here in Sweden. I understand that you are afraid of criminals, and getting robbed and killed. But equipping more people with guns is not the answer. It is a temporary solution at best, one that in the long run works against you. What I would do (okay, not what I would do, what I would do is irrelevant, I'd probably ship everyone to a small colony in Alaska, administer a few tests to see who is to be let out and have those people rebuild America with a new set of laws, but then again, I'm a borderline psychotic (according to some people, I think I'm the opposite of psychotic, which when thought about a bit, might not be much better) utopist. Okay, I might go with the approach detailed below as well (with the inclusion of the police methods)) is equip the police better. Expand the police instead of your bloody military, by lots. Double the amount of police stations, triple the amount of employed police in every established one (and the new ones) and get police in a more active role. Clean the place up. Organise nightwatch patrols to keep gang violence from rising, to keep people away from drugs. Get guns away from the wrong hands. Increase police's active role, seek out drugs, weapons and such. Make it unprofitable. (What I really would do is equip police with as much non-lethal ordinances as possible, and use a frontal charge. That works for most situations. Hostage situation? Drop some knockout gas in the whole building. Bank robbery? Knock them out. It eliminates the risks of civilians getting hurt (well, they'd get knocked out, but it could be worse) and would eliminate risks for police as well.) I'd also give police and other government organisation more of a presence. Have a day a month or something at city hall where questions can be asked to police officers, where it is recounted what has happened and explain the work they do. Have police come to schools and talk to people, maybe once a year, starting early. Letting people know the police is there for them and that they don't need to take care of themselves. Showing people that police are humans too, and that it's a viable career option, no matter where you live, and that they're still there for you, to serve and protect or whatever the mantra is.

Get better public healthcare and education, going with a Swedish or Norwegian approach. Free education, and free healthcare if you need it (if you break your leg you're going to need help no matter what kind of health insurance program you've selected, and if you can pay then great, if not, you still need help, and you get it). With free education comes oppurtunity, oppurtunity for something better. Something other than selling drugs and shooting rival gangs.

I'd also stop waging wars all around the word until I had my own country under control. Not before citizens of my own country can feel safe and sound, can walk the streets without fearing for their lives can I offer safety to other countries, especially not in a violent way. There's a good quote in the bible, one of few good ones in that book, (and one that many of the people reading it could really take more to heart) "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?". I find it pretty appropriate in regard to Americas war on terror, everyone in the country is afraid, and not very safe. How can you offer safety to the rest of the world then? And yes, not it actually turned much from gun laws and into America, but still.

 

[Silver]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

 

[wgreer25]

Also, not to belay the seriousness of your example wgreer.

But I always find myself chuckling when they say "Saved 100s of lives" as if the gunmen are always carrying over 100 rounds.

Yeah, I didn't really credit this media source as being very well writen, just something to get a point across. But here is something interesting...

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

I would like to comment on some of the Anti-American sentiments that have been thrown about. To say we are an example of what how a country has gone bad is a little harsh. I would think Burma or Darfur would be worthy of that title. The biggest problem with the US is also the reason the US is great, freedom. To explain, we are free to have the NAAPC and the KKK march side by side. You may hate it, but it is wonderful thing to be free enough to do it. We are free to own guns, but there is gun violence. You might want to take a close look at the laws that you think keep you safe, but in reality are robbing you of freedom. "None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free." Unfortunately, there are many political movements now in the US to take away more of our freedoms (like guns and freedom of speech). But at the same time there are many good forward thinking movements as well. I have a very good freind who is gay, and I would like to think that she has very benifit from a civil union that I have in my marriage. CA just made it legal. So what I'm saying is that the freedom we enjoy is a blessing and a curse, I will take it over many of the other alternatives out there.

I would again like to comment that I appreciate all of the intelligent informed responses. It is very nice to have a smart/civil discussion. Exercise for the brain.

 

[Mathurin]

Another essay coming up Why does it seem like all of my posts are really long?

People who reason that way is what is wrong with America today, and what has turned it, wait a minute, America has never been good, that has kept America from evolving like the rest of the world. That has kept America from advancing. There's a bloody reason almost all famous serial killers come from that country. America is a horrific country, an example of what happens when a country goes bad. A warning to the rest of the world.

It wouldn't be impossible. It happens every day in the rest of the world. The parts that it seems are marked as "here be dragons and communists" on American maps.

Americans applaud the odd, the rebels, it is good to be unique.
Other nations value conformity, social norms are enforced more heavily.

Applaud the odd and rebels perhaps. But not people who are different. People with deviating sexuality or people from different countries, or religions. That's what I meant, and that's the kind of people that in many, if not most places in America will have a hard time fitting in an being accepted.

I was describing why america is different and possibly more crime ridden, not giving you an excuse for a rant.
Also, you are incorrect, most americans are rather accepting of people who are willing to assimilate.
We do get annoyed at people who come here, but think they dont have to change in the slightest.

I really want to know where foreigners get these perceptions of America, it is not that bad really

The family of the guy we was brawling with isn't going to care if he killed by a Desert eagle or a colt (or they might if they want an open coffin).

They would not know the difference between a colt and a desert eagle created wound
first off, colt is a firearm manufacturer, a brand name, not a gun, So this is like saying "I am going to throw my samsung at you" you dont know whether to duck as a cell phone flies your way, or run as a car hurtles through the air (yes, samsung makes cars) Colt makes rifles pistols and almost any variety of guns a person could want
but I will assume you mean a "colt 1911" a specific pistol that fires a .45 caliber round (thats 11.43 milimeters for the non-metric)
Desert eagle is a general pistol designation, just as one car can have many engine options this gun has many ammunition options, but I assume you mean .50 AE, or 12.7 mm

Only a ME could truly tell which gun made the wounds, so bullet placement would be the difference between open and closed coffin in both cases.

Sorry to get technical, but it gets annoying when people watch too much TV and think that a pistol can make someones guts explode or something.

Sure, if someone were to run in with a KRISS or a SAW more police would get involved. That doesn't change the fact that people were killed. If he didn't have a gun, any gun, in the first place we wouldn't have to deal with it.

More likely he would retrieve a meelee weapon, but the incident wouldnt make headlines, because a bar fight just isnt interesting unless it can be turned into another reason to ban those darn guns.

Someone brought up perception earlier, and I want to do so again. In America one murder doesn't matter. It matters a lot if a killer uses a SAW and kills twenty people instead of someone using a handgun ad kills a single person. Comparing that to Sweden, with it's much healthier outlook on guns, we had a "serial killer" here once. Called the laserman, because of his use of lasersights which was the only clue he left. He killed one (1!) person and wounded around ten during several months. That's as bad as it gets here. There was a young man called Ricardo that got killed in gang violence last year, people still talk about it. It made the news for several months. Police got involved, they shut down subway stations, people starting patrolling as nightwatches.

Perhaps it is only my perception that is off, perhaps one murdered person in America doesn't matter. Perhaps an armed gunman isn't that dangerous, or a threat to society. To me it is. Equipping ordinary people with guns is begging for trouble. They're tools, and not for killing other humans.

In general, american gun deaths are often associated with gang wars, so the numbers can be skewed. I may sound like a horrid person, but I really dont care about gangs killing eachother off unless it gets bystanders

I understand that the situation in America is worlds away from the situation here in Sweden. I understand that you are afraid of criminals, and getting robbed and killed.

This is another perception I have heard from foreigners, "americans live in fear"
This is patently false.
We may spend more brainpower thinking about our safety than the average european, but I dont think thats a bad thing.

But equipping more people with guns is not the answer. It is a temporary solution at best, one that in the long run works against you. What I would do (okay, not what I would do, what I would do is irrelevant, I'd probably ship everyone to a small colony in Alaska, administer a few tests to see who is to be let out and have those people rebuild America with a new set of laws, but then again, I'm a borderline psychotic (according to some people, I think I'm the opposite of psychotic, which when thought about a bit, might not be much better) utopist. Okay,

Ok stalin

I might go with the approach detailed below as well (with the inclusion of the police methods)) is equip the police better. Expand the police instead of your bloody military, by lots. Double the amount of police stations, triple the amount of employed police in every established one (and the new ones) and get police in a more active role. Clean the place up. Organise nightwatch patrols to keep gang violence from rising, to keep people away from drugs. Get guns away from the wrong hands. Increase police's active role, seek out drugs, weapons and such. Make it unprofitable. (What I really would do is equip police with as much non-lethal ordinances as possible, and use a frontal charge. That works for most situations. Hostage situation? Drop some knockout gas in the whole building. Bank robbery? Knock them out. It eliminates the risks of civilians getting hurt (well, they'd get knocked out, but it could be worse) and would eliminate risks for police as well.) I'd also give police and other government organisation more of a presence. Have a day a month or something at city hall where questions can be asked to police officers, where it is recounted what has happened and explain the work they do. Have police come to schools and talk to people, maybe once a year, starting early. Letting people know the police is there for them and that they don't need to take care of themselves. Showing people that police are humans too, and that it's a viable career option, no matter where you live, and that they're still there for you, to serve and protect or whatever the mantra is.

Most gun owners have no problem with these ideas, and would support them in general. Indeed these ideas without any gun control would have a greater affect and cost far less than gun control.

Get better public healthcare and education, going with a Swedish or Norwegian approach. Free education, and free healthcare if you need it (if you break your leg you're going to need help no matter what kind of health insurance program you've selected, and if you can pay then great, if not, you still need help, and you get it). With free education comes oppurtunity, oppurtunity for something better. Something other than selling drugs and shooting rival gangs.

Another misperception about america.
Hospitals may not turn away patients, they must stabilize any patient walking in the door.
What does this mean?
It means that if you come in with a broken leg, chances are they will set it and cast it for you, since that stuff is pretty cheap.

but, if you come in with a foot broken in dozens of places, they will not do full scale reconstructive surgery, you will be healed, but with a clubfoot, not a fully functioning one.

we have free education to the high school level, many groups dont make it past that, but for those who do we have government programs to pay for their college.

I'd also stop waging wars all around the word until I had my own country under control. Not before citizens of my own country can feel safe and sound, can walk the streets without fearing for their lives can I offer safety to other countries, especially not in a violent way. There's a good quote in the bible, one of few good ones in that book, (and one that many of the people reading it could really take more to heart) "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?". I find it pretty appropriate in regard to Americas war on terror, everyone in the country is afraid, and not very safe. How can you offer safety to the rest of the world then? And yes, not it actually turned much from gun laws and into America, but still.

Safety is not what we seek, we seek liberty, liberty is dangerous, because while I have the liberty to do what I want, so do others, and what they want may hurt me.

Dont forget who started this war

 

[Mathurin]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

 

[wgreer25]

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

You are correct in that the problem is that guns are in the wrong hands. There is something you don't seem to understand. Maybe because of a limited view of this country (don't trust any media from here, it is very liberal and one sided) The gun control laws that congress has already put in place and new more restrictive laws DO NOT keep guns out of the wrong hands. As someone else mentioned earlier, Washington DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but is also the murder capital of the country. I am not opposed to gun contol, but let it be gun control that makes sense and is proven to stop crime. See my above post. Maybe you need to live here to relize that some of the people we vote for are absolute blithering idiots. Can it not be defined as moronic if after a gun control law is passed - crime goes up - pass more gun control laws, repeat same pattern, lather, rinse, repeat???? Again, see the link in my above post.

You made comments on possible solutions. Fighting drugs, police education in schools. A lot of the comments you made are done. In many schools there is a police presence. I graduated from high school in 1994 (yeah, I'm old) and back then we had an officer on campus 24/7. Your comment of non-lethal measures as crime deturants, they are used all the time. I have a brother-in-law who is an officer, he has used rubber bullets as opposed to lethal measures. And to your comment that a single murder doesn't get any media attention, well that is just not true. Local and National media do examine single homicides. The multipules just seem to get more air time. In my town, the local media will definately have a story of a single homicide (unfortunately). I think you are making conclusions based on media hype about the US and not actual knowledge of the country. You comment on the "war" on terroism. Well you may be surprised to know that the majority of this country wants our troops to come home, and I think the election in November will show that. I think you make a good point, that we are focusing on the wrong things, but what you may not realize is that too much effort can be put into a thing like gun contol when it is proven that gun control does nothing here in the states.

 

[T.H.O.R]

BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

True. However, with my military and firearm experience, I knew that (I'm pretty sure that your comment was intended to inform those who might have thought beanbags were a purely non-lethal solution). But I would like to say that none of the three criminals were killed, though I'm sure each one had badly bruised, or cracked ribs after the ordeal.


I'd also like to add that I spend a fair amount of time in the States each year. 4-5 months.
My half brother lives in Texas and thus I like to be there to see him and my young niece. Another chunk of time is spent in Georgia, where my wife has some family. And then yet another chunk in California just to get some quality beach/surf time in(And occasionally snowboarding).

I believe those are three different extremes of the States, and I will just end it with; Most of the perceived views of America from some other countries is exactly that: perceived The media ruins the image of the U.S.A.

There are a lot of great places in the country...but the media doesn't seem content with the good of America, they have to dig out the dirt.

 

[Mathurin]

Correct on all counts THOR, figured you knew but not everybody does

Though from my perceptions, I would be scared to defend myself in europe, have heard some stories of that going badly for people.

How did the fallout go down, were the cops nice or accusatory, did the fact that you used beanbags make a significant difference?

 

[Silver]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

The difference is huge. The difference is bloody life and death, and the fact that Mr. Horn confronted robbers in another house. I see that as a pretty darned huge difference. From what I read he also confronted them on their way out. If he'd have just stayed put where he should he wouldn't have gotten attacked, and those people wouldn't be dead. Dead. Do you know what that word means?

Also, not to belay the seriousness of your example wgreer.

But I always find myself chuckling when they say "Saved 100s of lives" as if the gunmen are always carrying over 100 rounds.

Yeah, I didn't really credit this media source as being very well writen, just something to get a point across. But here is something interesting...

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

I would like to comment on some of the Anti-American sentiments that have been thrown about. To say we are an example of what how a country has gone bad is a little harsh. I would think Burma or Darfur would be worthy of that title. The biggest problem with the US is also the reason the US is great, freedom. To explain, we are free to have the NAAPC and the KKK march side by side. You may hate it, but it is wonderful thing to be free enough to do it. We are free to own guns, but there is gun violence. You might want to take a close look at the laws that you think keep you safe, but in reality are robbing you of freedom. "None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free." Unfortunately, there are many political movements now in the US to take away more of our freedoms (like guns and freedom of speech). But at the same time there are many good forward thinking movements as well. I have a very good freind who is gay, and I would like to think that she has very benifit from a civil union that I have in my marriage. CA just made it legal. So what I'm saying is that the freedom we enjoy is a blessing and a curse, I will take it over many of the other alternatives out there.

I would again like to comment that I appreciate all of the intelligent informed responses. It is very nice to have a smart/civil discussion. Exercise for the brain.

Sure, freedom is good. But freedom can exist in different forms.

In Sweden too almost anyone who feels they really need or want a gun can get one. The KKK can march around as much as they want, and other organisations can protest against them as much as they want too. The difference is that here it isn't dangerous.

Up until very recently, with the FRA-law, I would have said that your statement that "You might want to take a close look at the laws that you think keep you safe, but in reality are robbing you of freedom. "None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free." " was completely false. Now I can't, sure out of everyone I've talked to only two people (except for the politicians that voted for it) are for the law. Everyone else is against it, there are several organisations started that oppose the law. This law is robbing us of our freedom, but none of us believe it will keep us safe, and not many will sit idly by and let it stick. I believe in freedom, to an extent. I believe in freedom if you prove you can handle it. I don't believe in sticking a gun in someones hands and then see how they handle it, I believe in testing the person first, that goes for many other things as well (not saying that's how it happens in America).


Mathurin, I know colt is a weapons manufacturer. I know it's not a specific weapon. I should have known I needed to specify exactly which model I meant becase apparently that makes all the difference in the world when someone is killed. My apologies. I admit that I was of the faulty perception that it didn't matter if you were killed by a nine-millimeter Sig Sauer P226 X-Five Tactical with a 15-round magazine or an ak-47. To me you'd be just as dead in either case. To me it wouldn't really matter which one shot my best friend, I would be devastated anyway, but since it's so important to you, I'll really try to specify exactly what kind of weapon I mean next time. Sorry.

Edit: Oh, shit. I made another mistake. An Ak-47 (7.62 mm assault rifle made by Izhmash and designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov) is an assault rifle and not a handgun, it's worlds different, it's like a tank blowing up a bar.


The Americans live in fear part was in response to a person here saying just that. An American. Reinforced by accounts from friends that have been to America. Apparently, when you're trying to sleep in your hotel room, gun shots aren't that sooting. You learn something new every day.

And no, not Stalin. His views were completely screwed up. He killed thousands of people. I value human life far more than that, and I value human lives far more than your right to shoot your neighbour if he steps onto your lawn.


The broken leg was also an example. Say you have an infection instead, or say you have a disease or need an operation. Not all people are going to be able to afford that. Free schooling here really means free schooling. You get free schooling until you're ready for a career.


"Safety is not what we seek, we seek liberty, liberty is dangerous, because while I have the liberty to do what I want, so do others, and what they want may hurt me.

Dont forget who started this war"

I repeat the quote from the bible and raise you the next part. "How can you say to your brother, ?Let me remove that splinter from your eye,? while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother?s eye."

And yes, I know who started the war. You did. America did. Don't try arguing for anything else. America started that war.


Your perception of liberty and mine are also different. You percieve liberty as the freedom of being allowed to do whatever the hell you want. I perceive it as the freedom to be able to do whatever the hell you want. But I also think complete liberity is wrong. It can only be as long as it concerns you. As soon as it starts to hurt anyone else, it's gone to far, and you infringe on that persons liberty. Taking a life is crossing that life almost as far as possible.

 

[Mathurin]

All I really want to say on this topic, is that I live in Norway. And a few months ago we had a group of three people, one woman, and two men break into the house my wife and I were renting, with my 17 month old niece in the house. We called the police, and I was informed that a vehicle was being dispatched.

I'm retired Norwegian military, and worked with the United State's 1st Marine Division in Iraq as a demolition specialist.

So whenever we identified the criminals as just that, I went to my safe used the key lock, and pulled out a Franchi SPAS12 Tactical shotgun, loaded it with bean-bags, and handed my old USP .45 to my wife, just in case.

We were able to subdue the three criminals about ten minutes before the police arrived (20 minutes after the call.) With only $50.00 USD property damage, and no one of my family hurt. I'm not sure that I could say the same had I not owned, and known how to operate firearms.



Whilst I will agree that not all Americans should be toting around guns, I do think it a wise idea to at least teach children in schools about guns. That way at least when they see one at a friend's house, or wherever, they know better than to pick it up waving it around.

I grew up around firearms, and have been taught the "right and wrong" side of them since as long as I can remember. Since I was actively involved with them at an early age, my half brother and I were taught that guns were something powerful to be respected and learn about, never to play with. I can proudly and assuredly say that I am a proud, and safe firearm owner.

The difference here being that you subdued the three people coming into YOUR house, you didn't KILL the two people in the neighbours. The problem I have isn't with weapons per se. It's the fact that you're putting a lot of Lethal weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous people, or withing reach of them.

The difference is minimal.

What everyone fails to report is that Horn CONFRONTED the criminals during a criminal act, and that they attacked him, or at least gave him good reason to fear an attack.
He did not simply lean out the window and shoot them without warning, that is still illegal

So the difference between this guy and Mr. Horn is that this guy wasnt attacked and forced to defend his life against the criminals he confronted.


BTW, at household ranges even beanbags will kill

The difference is huge. The difference is bloody life and death, and the fact that Mr. Horn confronted robbers in another house. I see that as a pretty darned huge difference. From what I read he also confronted them on their way out. If he'd have just stayed put where he should he wouldn't have gotten attacked, and those people wouldn't be dead. Dead. Do you know what that word means?

You are talking about the difference in the ending, I am talking about the difference in the situation.

the difference in the situation
Thor confronted criminals inside his house and shot them with bean bags
Horn confronted criminals OUTSIDE someone elses house and shot them with lead shot.

Both is confronting criminals, the difference is that horn did it outside, and did not have bean bags
I should mention that THORs bean bags can be lethal, so while we can look back now and say the difference is life and death, before the confrontation it could have been life and death.

Is it wrong to confront criminals, or only wrong outside of ones own property?
Thor could have stayed in his bedroom, was he wrong to seek out the criminals and confront them?

I believe in freedom if you prove you can handle it. I don't believe in sticking a gun in someones hands and then see how they handle it, I believe in testing the person first, that goes for many other things as well (not saying that's how it happens in America).

Doesnt work that way.
Either you are free, and will be free until the gov can prove through "due process" that you are not capable, or you arent.
There is case law on this from the days of Jim crow (racist laws) the whites used "literacy tests" to make blacks prove their ability to vote. Doesnt work that way

Mathurin, I know colt is a weapons manufacturer. I know it's not a specific weapon. I should have known I needed to specify exactly which model I meant becase apparently that makes all the difference in the world when someone is killed. My apologies. I admit that I was of the faulty perception that it didn't matter if you were killed by a nine-millimeter Sig Sauer P226 X-Five Tactical with a 15-round magazine or an ak-47. To me you'd be just as dead in either case. To me it wouldn't really matter which one shot my best friend, I would be devastated anyway, but since it's so important to you, I'll really try to specify exactly what kind of weapon I mean next time. Sorry.

Edit: Oh, shit. I made another mistake. An Ak-47 (7.62 mm assault rifle made by Izhmash and designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov) is an assault rifle and not a handgun, it's worlds different, it's like a tank blowing up a bar.

I wasnt trying to be a dick, its just that in my experience people who dislike guns know very little about them.
A rifle and a handgun do differ, but again its not as significantly as some might think, buit it was all good

The Americans live in fear part was in response to a person here saying just that. An American. Reinforced by accounts from friends that have been to America. Apparently, when you're trying to sleep in your hotel room, gun shots aren't that sooting. You learn something new every day.

Its not just you, I have heard it many times.
I used to live in the country, when I heard gunshots I knew the neighbor was practicing.

There are high crime and scary areas, but in general the US is safe

And no, not Stalin. His views were completely screwed up. He killed thousands of people. I value human life far more than that, and I value human lives far more than your right to shoot your neighbour if he steps onto your lawn.

You would make people prove their worthiness to a inherent right, its authoritarian and that is what he was.
I dont have a right to shoot my neighbor for stepping on my lawn, strawman

The broken leg was also an example. Say you have an infection instead, or say you have a disease or need an operation. Not all people are going to be able to afford that. Free schooling here really means free schooling. You get free schooling until you're ready for a career.

Low level care is typically very inexpensive, and most hospitals take the medical ethics of care very seriously, they treat them for free. Operations require work, but they are also possible to find for minimal cost through universities and such, there are also free clinics both gov and private charity sponsored.
Dont think that I dont have compassion, but they do have options, I see no need to make it a government responsibility.

"ready for a career" is so subjective, at 17 you are ready to serve chips

Ultimately, someone pays, but we are off topic and I doubt this capitalistic american and you the welfare state european will see eye to eye on this.

"Safety is not what we seek, we seek liberty, liberty is dangerous, because while I have the liberty to do what I want, so do others, and what they want may hurt me.

Dont forget who started this war"

I repeat the quote from the bible and raise you the next part. "How can you say to your brother, ?Let me remove that splinter from your eye,? while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother?s eye."

And yes, I know who started the war. You did. America did. Don't try arguing for anything else. America started that war.

I would, but I am going to drop this, it will take up precious gun debating time.

Your perception of liberty and mine are also different. You percieve liberty as the freedom of being allowed to do whatever the hell you want. I perceive it as the freedom to be able to do whatever the hell you want. But I also think complete liberity is wrong. It can only be as long as it concerns you. As soon as it starts to hurt anyone else, it's gone to far, and you infringe on that persons liberty. Taking a life is crossing that life almost as far as possible.

Yes, the "your right to do what you want ends where my rights begin"
That is correct and I agree.
however you have misapplied it here.
But first I want to hit on the "allowed" vs "able" thing.
I understand what you mean, BUT, when able gives the government obscene amounts of power, its just not worth it.


Anyway, an individuals right to life ends when they threaten my right to life.
The typical boundary for self defense in america (it depends on the state) is "would a reasonable person in that situation fear for their life, or severe injury"

A law cannot grant me liberty to live, if I am not allowed to defend that life against others who wish to take it.

 

[T.H.O.R]

Correct on all counts THOR, figured you knew but not everybody does

How did the fallout go down, were the cops nice or accusatory, did the fact that you used beanbags make a significant difference?

In an odd way of saying it; it went very peacefully. Classical Opera music could have been playing in the background, and the scene moving in slow motion...would have been perfect for a film.

I exited the bedroom and happened to be at the back of all three of them in my media/entertainment/computer room...I politely asked them to turn around, keeping the shotgun leveled. As you'd expect they were startled, and a bit uneasy to be looking down the barrel of such a beautiful weapon. The woman seemed to panic and reach for the pistol in her belt and so I adjusted my sights and fired. She fell down...

One of the men moved to help her, and the other reached for his side-arm..I pumped, aimed, and fired (I make it sound like this is a slow process, but it all happened in just about 10 seconds) He went down. The third held his hands up high above his head as I pumped another bag into the chamber. About this time my wife came through the media door..and the last burglar and I shared the same thought at the same time..he looked at her and started to move, and I fired without even thinking...there was a loud snap as the bag made contact with his ribs from about 15 meters away, and he crumpled to the floor. My wife then realized she'd come out the wrong door at the wrong time. We apprehended their weapons, my wife tended the one bleeding wound (the woman of the three had fallen onto a glass coffee table and cut herself pretty badly)...a few minutes later, the police knocked on my door.

They didn't really give me any trouble, but that's also because when my wife phoned the police she told them that I was armed, ex-military, and prepared to handle the situation.

They kindly thanked me for my service, handcuffed the criminals, and took them to the station. I was compensated for my losses about 3 months later.

I think the police would have been a bit less happy had I used slugs, or buck-shot (the other types of shotgun ammunition I keep around). I loaded bean-bags

Though from my perceptions, I would be scared to defend myself in europe, have heard some stories of that going badly for people.

Norway is in Scandinavia not Europe.