Texas at it again

[kristo]

chbare,

Thanks for the clarification - I had some idea about this, but it's good to get a "general view" from a normal person on it.

I must stress that it neither was, nor is, my intention to bash your culture, especially not here, in an American forum. That would be like for you guys to come to Iceland and spit on Jón Sigurðsson's grave...(plus 5 for anyone who knows who he was ).

We should probably just put this on cultural differences and move on...sorry if I offended anyone.

[flopeyeman]

Ours is a small society (the total population of the country is about 300 thousand) and since we do not have a history of public gun ownership, we have no "tradition" of armed criminals, hence very limited need for armed police (SWAT only, maybe 1-2 calls a year in the whole country).

For those reasons, I do understand how our model would not work everywhere.

However, I still think law enforcement should be left to the police (that includes any protection/defense needed), judging and sentencing should be left to courts and the aftermath to the correction system. Letting any member of the general public buy a gun and be all of those in one person...well, obviously, I must say it wouldn't make me feel any safer.

I see I'm in a minority here, and I probably won't convince anyone, especially given the cultural difference, but I still wanted to put in my 2 cents.

This has a faint start of reminding me of a thread on allowing the general public to listen in on police/FD/EMS radio communications, which we discussed for 5-6 pages on EMT city about 3-4 years ago. Don't see many of the same people here anymore, though. Just RichardB, the EMT and Medic2588 (Devlin, the book promoter )...and now me again... :wink:

Edit: Removed a potentially "flammable" comment about the jury system.

one question kristo if some one was breaking into your home and they were going to harm you or one of your family member would you not want the right to defend yourself and how would you choose to do this? if this said criminal had a gun or a knife

[chbare]

Kristo, no offense taken. In fact, it is actually nice to have a cordial conversation with somebody that has a different view. One of the issues that must be considered is that the United States is a huge country with millions of citizens, and unfortunately a large population of criminals. In a situation like this, we cannot expect the law enforcement resources to be readily available. I think it is reasonable to allow the citizens to protect themselves, keeping in mind the concept of accountability.

While I would love to live in a world where we can sit around the camp fire and sing John Lennon songs, we must accept the reality of our country. I see no problem with allowing a law abiding citizen to defend him/herself or others.

As I understand, Jón Sigurðsson was a well know scholar and played a crucial role in the development of Iceland's constitution.

Take care,

chbare.

[kristo]

one question kristo if some one was breaking into your home and they were going to harm you or one of your family member would you not want the right to defend yourself and how would you choose to do this? if this said criminal had a gun or a knife

I'm not sure sure if I'm hi-jacking the thread and starting a flame war (OP, was this kind of discussion the intended usage of the thread?), but I'll answer the question.

First of all, I like to think that, in my society, this is extremely unlikely to happen, especially with firearms (I don't personally know of any case in Iceland where a firearm has been used to rob anyone or to attack anyone in their home), but if it would, I do not believe I would have what it takes to point a gun at another human being and squeeze the trigger unless under extremely exceptional conditions. I see a weapon in my home as an increased risk for me or my family, either by accident or if a potential attacker (if one would come) would somehow get the weapon (maybe through my inability to use it against him?).

I realize this is a difference in cultures and not all of my arguments are applicable in the US. Since you asked about me and my home, however, I find them valid.

I'm sure there are some situations where I would feel forced to exercise lethal force, eg. someone harming members of my family. However, I think the risk of accidents and "the bad guys" getting weapons significantly outweighs any benefits of arming the general public. Again, I realize that in the US, the "bad guys" already have guns, so this partly does not apply for you.

For self-defense, I like to call 112 (the European version of 911). That makes me a dot on a digital map for a dispatcher that can send me police, EMS, FD, coast guard, SAR, the Icelandic Red Rross, Icelandic Road Administration, even child protection services with a push of a button...

[kristo]

Kristo, no offense taken. In fact, it is actually nice to have a cordial conversation with somebody that has a different view. One of the issues that must be considered is that the United States is a huge country with millions of citizens,

Duly noted. The Icelandic approach does not scale.

and unfortunately a large population of criminals. In a situation like this, we cannot expect the law enforcement resources to be readily available. I think it is reasonable to allow the citizens to protect themselves, keeping in mind the concept of accountability.

Be that as it may, but wouldn't more guns in the community mean more illegal use of them? I actually do believe that gun's don't kill people, people kill people, but I am much more comfortable with a fist fight than a shoot-out...

Is lack of available law enforcement a part of the problem, in your opinion?

This is obviously debatable. As I understand, and as you pointed out, there is also a debate within the US on interpretation of the amendment, eg. when is it legal to shoot someone, and what kind of guns can which people have...

This might not be something that I, as a foreigner, can really understand or even discuss, as it is your community, not mine (I've only once even been to the US).

As I understand, Jón Sigurðsson was a well know scholar and played a crucial role in the development of Iceland's constitution.

+5 - wasn't there a ranking system on this site at one point? What happened to that system?

[chbare]

Kristo, the criminal does not care about gun laws and will obtain weapons in spite strict gun legislation. In addition, if somebody intends to kill me or inflict serious harm to myself or others, a fist fight may not be effective in diffusing the situation. Remember, we are not talking about a school yard brawl when we mention the use of deadly force. We are talking about taking measures to stop a person from performing an action that may kill somebody. In addition, doubling our numbers of law enforcement resources would still not ensure protection of the population. The United States is populated with over 300 million people and is a massive country with a large criminal population. It would be impossible to have resources immediately available. In addition, I believe that we as people must take personal resposibility for our own safety and security among many other things.

I do understand that this may indeed seem foreign to you. I am glad that you live in a country where you feel so safe that you do not see the need to have a weapon. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of my country. In addition, guns have been a routine part of my life and I have never lived in a situation where I did not own a weapon. You must understand that some of us have grown up with weapons. In addition, I spent several years in the military and have had the chance to attend many shooting schools and spend allot of time shooting and hunting. However, I do understand that you have not lived in an environment where guns were commonplace.

Take care,

chbare.

[spenac]

One of the main reasons the law was in need of change there had been people arrested for defending themselves. Also many were sued and some even lost because the criminals were given more rights than the law abiding people. If a person breaks in while I'm home I have to believe that they are willing to harm or kill me and my family otherwise why don't they wait until we're out of the house? While I am a cowboy having worked on ranches in the past and yes I own and carry guns, we're not all looking to shoot people, we just deserve the right to protect ourselves and our familys. As far as shooting someone that is stealing say from my land but not near enough to be a threat I'll let law enforcement deal with them, I can buy more stuff but I can't replace my family.

[JPINFV]

Personally, I am a strong supporter of conceal-carry laws. As surprisingly as it sounds, there is case law that says that the police are not required to protect any person, but only a general obligation to the public (Warren v. District of Columbia, Hartzler v. City of San Jose, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services). This leaves protection up to the populace.

Arguably, a parallel argument can be made for residence in wild fire areas. No one expects that the fire department will be able to save their home in the event of a massive, fast moving fire. Limited resources and limited ability (especially in fast moving fires) makes it unrealistic that fire fighters can protect EVERYONE. Hence, it is expected that home owners protect themselves from wild fires by replacing wood shingle roofs and keeping brush clearance around their homes. A similar argument can be made that civilians, especially those living in high crime areas, should make the effort to protect themselves from crime.

PS, Iceland is great. CCP/Eve-Online is based out of there.

[Lone Star]

Well, since everybody is being so civil in this, I will do my best to follow suit.

First off, I think the only reason Texas was used as an example, is because of the movie version of the gun totin', posse formin', whiskey drinkin' shoot -'em up cowboys we see on television. In all acutality, Texas is not the first state, nor the last state to enact concealed pistol licenses. There are alot of 'Right To Carry' States already. In those 'Right To Carry' States, I believe that they are actually allowed to carry a weapon in plain sight.

I don't live in such a state, (State of Michigan is not a 'Right To Carry State), but I am licensed to carry a concealed pistol. I not only had to go through not only classroom training (which outlines the rules of concealed carry), but also had to take a 'range test' to prove proficiency.

Even though I have a license to carry a concealed pistol, there are areas that I CANNOT carry it. Hospitals, schools, churches, bars, municipal buildings (such as the Courthouse), places of public polling (where you vote at) to name a few. I cannot carry a pistol if I've been drinking (zero tolerance policy in place).

Michigan, like many other states has what was named "The Castle Doctrine" package of bills (so misleadingly referred to the 'Make My Day Bill"). In a nutshell, this allows me the right to defend myself in places that I'm LEGALLY allowed to carry a concealed pistol. (Until this legislation was enacted, when faced with an armed attacker, I had to try to outrun the bad guy, and hope for the best)

The rules for the use of lethal force are very strict, and very clear. It is NOT, (although some would like you to believe) that it gives me the right to 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

Michigan, like Florida has put in the legislation, that if after a thorough investigation, the shooting was justified, I cannot be charged criminally, nor can I be subjected to civil litigation by the 'victim' or the surviving family. (This ONLY applies to a 'clean shoot'!)

Here's a link to the Michigan concealed weapons laws:

http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_...10926--,00.html

Michigans 'Pistol Free Zones' information can be found here: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1...10947--,00.html

The detractors of not only the concealed pistol legislation, and the Castle Doctrine legislation tried to say that if these bills were signed into law, then 'the streets would run red with blood of innocent people' and that violent crime and crimes involving weapons would rise to astronomical levels. In the first year, violent crime in Michigan (it's the only state I can speak about with any real authority) dropped by 10% in the first year alone!

Although I am trained to intervene in medical emergencies, and use my skills to protect the fragility of life, I have no qualms about pulling the trigger when it comes down to defending myself and my family.

[hfdff422]

Credit HC Resident on the local forum:

700,000 DOCTORS OF MEDICINE IN USA

120,000 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS CAUSED BY DOCTORS PER YEAR

= 0.17 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS PER DOCTOR PER YEAR

80,000,000 GUN OWNERS IN USA

1,500 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS CAUSED BY GUNS PER YEAR

FOR ALL AGE GROUPS... TOTAL...KIDS & ALL.. GET IT?

= 0.000019 ACCIDENTAL DEATHS PER GUN OWNER PER YEAR

0.17 IS TO 0.000019 AS 8,947 IS TO 1 !

DOCTORS, THEREFORE, ARE 8,947 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO

KILL YOU THAN A GUN OWNER... BASED ON THE STATISTICS

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN; BUT WHO DOES NOT HAVE

A DOCTOR?

ALERT YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, RELATIVES AND CONGRESS

TO THIS ALARMING THREAT, AND BAN DOCTORS BEFORE THIS SITUATION GETS WORSE.

(AS A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE, STATISTICS FOR LAWYERS HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FOR FEAR THAT THIS SHOCK COULD CAUSE PEOPLE TO SEEK MEDICAL AID FROM DOCTORS)

Have fun with this- By the way, I am not yelling as this is pasted as it was orignally posted