The magic question

This is the place for ON or Off topic conversations. Almost anything goes - but be kind, and no trolling.
Forum rules
While the rules in this forum are more relaxed than in other parts of the Expat site, there are still a few things we’d like you to remember: No name calling, no insults – be civil to each other!
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

The magic question

Postby gringito » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:29 pm

I woke up in the middle of the night and suddenly had this question in my head – and shortly after a headache!

Why do so many people
A)
on the one hand accept the criminal as an inevitable part of life, a sort of god given eternal menace, a sort of impregnable dark force against which no resistance appears to be possible and no antidote seems to exist, and they respond to it only with flight or prepare for it by utilizing means of self defense which do not hurt the criminal (...), means which they can sacrifice (e.g. a dummy wallet or 10$ as a booty), etc;
AND
ON THE OTHER HAND
B)
consider law abiding gun owners (or arms owner), which do not retreat from a criminal threat but are prepared and willing to repel such threat, as dangerous or even crazy people which they fear even more than the criminal and which they socially, morally and politically ostracize and depict as a danger for society and for their own existence?


The question aroused in the course of this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26458

However, I have allowed myself to open a separate thread since the question is more orientated to psychological and social effects and patters.

In context with B) I have read, for example, of fears, exaggerations and quite irrational thoughts such as
- law abiding gun owner s would create a Wild West environment,
- even 90 year olds would carry a Smith& Wesson,
- why not arm schoool kids with guns, eh?
- even tourists would have a Kalaschnikow,
- drunk gun owners in a bar would get into fights,
- a law abiding gun owner could brake the law, i.e. become a CRIMINAL! :shock:
- the world would become a really dangerous place;
- etc.

What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!

And as an add on a question a la advocatus diaboli (devil's advocate):
If the legally armed fellow citizens would REALLY (…) brake the law, i.e. become a CRIMINAL, why should they care? I mean, in such case they “only” had the SAME situation they are already willing to deal with by providing sacrificial offerings (dummy wallet, cheap items, etc.) to the criminal and by acting with the flight response?


Don´t get me wrong: I do not intend to enter into an anti gun vs. pro gun discussion.
What happens behind the forehead of the person that simply accepts the criminal & the threat of crime but not the fellow citizen that resists to the criminal and considers THE FELLOW CITIZEN as the REAL threat, this is what I am interested in.


ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: The magic question

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:27 am

gringito wrote:I woke up in the middle of the night and suddenly had this question in my head – and shortly after a headache!

Why do so many people
A)
on the one hand accept the criminal as an inevitable part of life, a sort of god given eternal menace, a sort of impregnable dark force against which no resistance appears to be possible and no antidote seems to exist, and they respond to it only with flight or prepare for it by utilizing means of self defense which do not hurt the criminal (...), means which they can sacrifice (e.g. a dummy wallet or 10$ as a booty), etc;

I accept the criminal as an inevitable part of life because crime itself is inevitable. I believe resistance is possible. I think the response to a criminal act depends entirely on the individual circumstances of the particular crime.

gringito wrote:AND
ON THE OTHER HAND
B)
consider law abiding gun owners (or arms owner), which do not retreat from a criminal threat but are prepared and willing to repel such threat, as dangerous or even crazy people which they fear even more than the criminal and which they socially, morally and politically ostracize and depict as a danger for society and for their own existence?

In general, I don't. I do believe that there are people who have yet to commit any crime and may be crazy. Though they are currently not a criminal, who knows what could happen if you put a gun in their hand. Most likely a small percentage of the population and nothing I worry about. The same guy could go nuts with a kitchen knife or car just as easily, if not more easily.

The question aroused in the course of this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26458

However, I have allowed myself to open a separate thread since the question is more orientated to psychological and social effects and patters.

gringito wrote:IIn context with B) I have read, for example, of fears, exaggerations and quite irrational thoughts such as
- law abiding gun owner s would create a Wild West environment,
- even 90 year olds would carry a Smith& Wesson,
- why not arm schoool kids with guns, eh?
- even tourists would have a Kalaschnikow,
- drunk gun owners in a bar would get into fights,
- a law abiding gun owner could brake the law, i.e. become a CRIMINAL! :shock:
- the world would become a really dangerous place;
- etc.

-Wild West - Perhaps in Somalia, Iraq, Syria, other (civil) war ravaged countries. Stabler countries with high rates of gun ownership such as the US and Canada, I have yet to see anything that could described as "Wild West," and I've lived in Western states where it's not uncommon to see a guy walk into a convenience store to buy a gaseosa with a pistol strapped to his side. In remote Alaska everyone walked around armed. After an accidental death it took two days for a Park Ranger to show up and there're large bears running around. You'd be stupid to leave your house without being armed.
-90 year olds - Maybe. So what? Don't see the relevance.
-arm school kids - sounds more rhetorical than a possibility up for serious discussion.
-tourists with Kalaschnikow's - I'm guessing local, state, and/or federal laws wouldn't allow this.
-drunk gun owners in bar fights - Again, perhaps. I think a lot depends on the type of bar. Lot of hip/hop clubs use metal detectors now. I don't know that it's much of a problem now in your "average" local type bar and currently if someone wants to bring a gun into that type of bar there's not much stopping them. I get the point though. Alcohol and firearms don't really go well together.
-law abiding gun owner turns instant criminal - Semantics. Every criminal was once a law abiding citizen, until they committed a crime. Was a firearm responsible for this change of attitude? Unless the person was unstable to the point of being convinced by an inanimate piece of metal to turn criminal, no. If he was convinced by owning a gun, he has far greater problems and would be dangerous with or without a gun.
-the world would become a dangerous place - You mean it isn't already?

gringito wrote:What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!

I think the issue is that no one knows the intent of a stranger. Nobody walks around with good guy/bad guy identifiers. Sometimes even the police who are in uniform can be looked at as good guys or bad guys, depending on the color of your skin. I don't think people are any more or less afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of criminals. They just don't know who's who. What they are afraid of is being shot, be it as a direct target or caught in cross-fire between criminals and legally armed fellow citizens who are shooting it out at the mall, movie theater or other public place. I lived in the Denver area when that nut shot up the theater during the last 'Batman' movie. Lot of comments from people saying if they were allowed to have had their gun with them they'd of taken the guy out. How do you do that in a loud, dark theater showing an action movie after the guy dressed in all black sets off smoke bombs? People would just start shooting wherever they see muzzle flashes. How many people would fire not being sure of their target and what was beyond it? I wouldn't want to be near some armed, untrained person who panics and just starts blasting. Panic creates more panic. A lot of guns would have made that situation worse than it already was.

gringito wrote:And as an add on a question a la advocatus diaboli (devil's advocate):
If the legally armed fellow citizens would REALLY (…) brake the law, i.e. become a CRIMINAL, why should they care? I mean, in such case they “only” had the SAME situation they are already willing to deal with by providing sacrificial offerings (dummy wallet, cheap items, etc.) to the criminal and by acting with the flight response?


Don´t get me wrong: I do not intend to enter into an anti gun vs. pro gun discussion.
What happens behind the forehead of the person that simply accepts the criminal & the threat of crime but not the fellow citizen that resists to the criminal and considers THE FELLOW CITIZEN as the REAL threat, this is what I am interested in.

As I mentioned up top, I think response should be relative to the situation at hand. First question; how many criminals am I facing and how are they armed? Do I even fully know the answers to those two questions? Am I in my home or on the street? Let's say I'm on the street. Positive I'm in a one on one. I'd pull my gun if I had it on me and use it if necessary - the guy doesn't turn and run but continues to be a threat. No gun, I'm thinking pepper spray (giving me time to flee) which can be used at a greater distance than I knife. Knives scare me in that you have to be very close to your attacker to use it. If he physically overwhelms me he could take it and use it on me. Not as likely to happen with a gun when the gun holder is willing to use it.

What if there are more than one attackers or I'm not sure how many there are and how they are armed? Pull a gun in this situation and you may take out your main target, maybe a second if you're fast, but if there's more than one attacker your odds of getting shot (do they have guns?) increase greatly. In Lima street criminals tend to work in packs. In this case it is best to offer whatever they want because of the unknowns of knowing exactly what you're up against. Could they harm you anyway even after you've handed over your stuff? Of course. Most street criminals are interested in your stuff, not killing you, which increases their penalty should they be caught. To me it's a matter of odds. The odds favor that I'm being robbed by someone, or a group, looking to take my stuff, not a psycho looking to take my life just to kill someone. If facing a psycho or someone you feel just doesn't want to take your stuff but your life then sure, pull your gun, knife or whatever because you have nothing to lose but your life at that point.

In a potential situation where I'm dealing with criminals like this I'm looking at the path of least resistance, not to be a hero, or stand my ground, make a point, or anything else. I just want to get out with as little harm done and as fast as possible. To me, it makes more sense to give them a wallet with a few bills in it and hope that's the end of it. Even if I had a gun, unless I was positive it was a one on one situation, the odds of getting shot or hurt greatly increase if I resist. Take the fifty soles in my wallet and take off. They're not looking to make a robbery last longer than necessary. The quicker they're satisfied, they quicker they go. Don't walk around with stuff you're not willing to lose or give up if you're life is threatened. It's possible you might get stripped naked, but more likely that they will take what's obvious and move on. I wear a travel belt with an unseen zipped up compartment on the inside. Unless they take my belt off they're not getting what I have hidden there. If they don't take my pants off they're not finding the wallet that attaches to my leg. Hopefully by tossing them a wallet and spilling some coins on the ground they're satisfied and I make a run for it while they're picking money off the ground. I'm also willing to give them my backpack because I haven't put anything of great value inside of it. I just don't want to get shot because I didn't hand over my "stuff." I'm not really into having or accumulating stuff and don't have many material possessions of great monetary value. Unless you're in a wide open space you have no idea how many attackers your facing, how they're armed, and what they're willing to do if you don't cooperate. As reminded the other day, even a martial arts expert can easily be killed. I'm not surprised or concerned if you and perhaps others feel differently about any or all of what I've written, but I tried to provide honest opinions to your questions. As we've seen just here on this forum - it's a touchy subject for some.

As far as someone trying to attack me in my house where I have a greater advantage? Say hello to my little friend....
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: The magic question

Postby teamoperu » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:37 am

I don't understand the question... or what is magical about it.
But if you are trying to understand the thinking of a certain someone who wants to arm school kids, then good luck, now that would magical.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:31 pm

@ironchefchris: Thank you for your thoughts!
(Edited orthography)

@teamoperu: seems you understood nothing. Maybe you should rearm your mind.
Last edited by gringito on Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:32 pm

I cannot get rid of the feeling that the people I was talking about fear their armed fellow citizens because they appear to be similar to the criminal, i.e. they show strength, self-confidence and confidence in general which the anxious obviously do not have.
Moreover, armed fellow citizens usually trust in other armed fellow citizens. The anxious don´t.

gringito wrote:What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!

Apart from that I am still interested in this question.
Thanks.

PS:
I really admire this one:
Image
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: The magic question

Postby teamoperu » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:58 am

Well, if that is the question then I reject your hypothesis. Can you somehow prove that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal? I am not. I am afraid of both: the legally armed nutjob and the illegally armed thug, but the thrug obviously scares me more.

And where does a legally armed thug fit into your faulty thinking?
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:15 pm

teamoperu wrote:Well, if that is the question then I reject your hypothesis.

Rejection is not an answer but rather a refusal to seriously deal with the matter.
However, congrats that you found one of the the main questions.

teamoperu wrote:Can you somehow prove that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?

While I cannot and did not intend at all to prove that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens I personally made the experience that "many people" (as I clearly said...) are, including obviously some posters in the thread I mentioned.

The intention was/is not to prove something but to understand the phenomenon.

teamoperu wrote:I am not. I am afraid of both: the legally armed nutjob and the illegally armed thug, but the thrug obviously scares me more.

Could you please explain why you consider legally armed gun owners as "nutjobs" and what this (quite irrational assertion...) has to do with the questions initially raised?

In this context I would highly appreciate if you could explain
a) why you assign to a law abiding citizen the attributes of insanity; and
b) if said attribute of insanity that you have granted is not an obvious evidence of your fears ("I am afraid.. ", "scares me..")-

teamoperu wrote:And where does a legally armed thug fit into your faulty thinking?

You surely wish to tell me....but
don´t forget to specify what according to your opinion is faulty.
Otherwise it is merely an empty assertion or statement without any reasoning.

Thanks & adelante!
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: The magic question

Postby teamoperu » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:41 am

gringito wrote:
teamoperu wrote:Well, if that is the question then I reject your hypothesis.

Rejection is not an answer but rather a refusal to seriously deal with the matter.
However, congrats that you found one of the the main questions.

teamoperu wrote:Can you somehow prove that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?

While I cannot and did not intend at all to prove that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens I personally made the experience that "many people" (as I clearly said...) are, including obviously some posters in the thread I mentioned.

The intention was/is not to prove something but to understand the phenomenon.

teamoperu wrote:I am not. I am afraid of both: the legally armed nutjob and the illegally armed thug, but the thrug obviously scares me more.

Could you please explain why you consider legally armed gun owners as "nutjobs" and what this (quite irrational assertion...) has to do with the questions initially raised?

In this context I would highly appreciate if you could explain
a) why you assign to a law abiding citizen the attributes of insanity; and
b) if said attribute of insanity that you have granted is not an obvious evidence of your fears ("I am afraid.. ", "scares me..")-

teamoperu wrote:And where does a legally armed thug fit into your faulty thinking?

You surely wish to tell me....but
don´t forget to specify what according to your opinion is faulty.
Otherwise it is merely an empty assertion or statement without any reasoning.

Thanks & adelante!


Well, lets see. If you cannot prove your hypothesis then I surely should reject it. You want me to blindly accept an unproven hypothesis? Won't happen. And it would well nigh be impossible to understand an incorrect hypothesis because it is, well, incorrect. Please prove to me you hypothesis that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the armed thug/criminal.

Yes, you did say more afraid:

gringito wrote:What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!

I recall several examples of legally armed nutjobs massacring people in the USA and elsewhere. But the comment was mostly to demonstrate the flaws in your logic.
Sergio Bernales
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:41 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby Sergio Bernales » Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:18 am

Gringito, I've read in your past posts that you were the victim of a particularly horrible assault and I can understand your passion on this matter. I also sympathise greatly with you that such a thing happened.

My only thinking on this matter is that I would feel the same had the same thing happened to me, or I lived in a country where there were many criminals and citizens in possessions of arms, like the US is at the moment.

However, in my country, after a lunatic shot school children 20 odd years ago, possession of weapons is strictly controlled. The police don't carry them, except at airports and other places of national importance, the criminals rarely have them, the citizens rarely have them. So in this context, most people are against anyone carrying weapons, because there are so few of them in circulation.

I think your thoughts are valid in a context where weapons are easily available to criminals or citizens. In a small island off the coast of Europe, it's very difficult to buy weapons, so people tend to be against them.
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: The magic question

Postby chi chi » Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:15 pm

NO GUNS = NO SHOOTINGS

Throw anyone who possesses a gun for a least 25 years in jail and less people will commit the crime of possessing a gun.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:16 pm

@teamoperu:
I understand from your deviating answers that you are not honestly interested in dealing with an honest question. Furthermore, I understand that you fear that law abiding gun owners become mass murderers. Thanks.

chi chi wrote:NO GUNS = NO SHOOTINGS
Throw anyone who possesses a gun for a least 25 years in jail and less people will commit the crime of possessing a gun.

This is quite naïve. While you may disarm the law abiding citizens (as history shows, a method that tyrants practiced with a lot of success in history; the result was always genocide) the criminals will keep their guns, as they always did. Consequently you concede the gun monopole to the criminals while you render the citizens defenseless.
Moreover, your comment reveals a terribly wrong legal understanding. Possessing a gun is not a crime if you own it legally. Consequently, why would YOU throw somebody into jail that complies with the laws?! Because you have your very own idea of laws?

Sergio Bernales wrote:I think your thoughts are valid in a context where weapons are easily available to criminals or citizens.

Sergio, I am living in Peru, a country where criminals carry and ruthlessly use guns and where law abiding citizens are entitled to legally own and legitimately use guns for self defense.

Sergio Bernales wrote:Gringito, I've read in your past posts that you were the victim of a particularly horrible assault and I can understand your passion on this matter. I also sympathise greatly with you that such a thing happened.
My only thinking on this matter is that I would feel the same had the same thing happened to me, or I lived in a country where there were many criminals and citizens in possessions of arms, like the US is at the moment.

Sergio, this sounds a little bit like “because something terrible happened to you…this explains why you have so lunatic opinions.”
Though I made my mind long before, the victim aspect is worth a consideration. Talks with rape victims or victims that got heavily hurt by thugs and survived and few will tell you that they wouldn`t have liked a weapon to defend themselves. Those who weren`t capable to defend themselves usually changed their mind.

Sergio Bernales wrote:However, in my country, after a lunatic shot school children 20 odd years ago, possession of weapons is strictly controlled. The police don't carry them, except at airports and other places of national importance, the criminals rarely have them, the citizens rarely have them. So in this context, most people are against anyone carrying weapons, because there are so few of them in circulation.

May I assume that you share the fear that law abiding armed citizens may become mass murderers?

I come from a country where similar incidents happened. It was the perfect occasion for our Government to sharpen gun laws and disarm the citizens. Crime rate still did not lower. However, I hear from my parents that more and more old people in my ex town get mugged. The ambulance appears to bring them to the hospital and the police asks some questions. Crime prevented? Nope.

Legally owned cars kill much more people every day than legally owned guns within a period of years but cars are not forbidden. Justificaction? A gun is designed to kill!

Crazy people and criminals will always find a way to get effective weapons and they will use them.
A disarmed citizen is rendered prey and his fundamental right of self defense and therefore his right to life and dignity is sacrificed to the do-gooder illusion that the state and the police will protect you. But they don`t. In the moment of truth you are on your own.
Sergio Bernales
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:41 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby Sergio Bernales » Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:03 pm

Gringito, I did not intend to be patronising and please accept my apologies if that's how my comment came across. I think your comments are probably very valid in Peru. However, as I am fortunate enough to live in an area of Lima, where there are Serenazgo or guardias on every corner, I don't share your fears. I accept them and I think they are are valid. However, as I said, coming from the UK, where guns are rare and living in a nice part of Lima, I rarely have to consider armed criminals as being a threat to me.

My only point is that were I in your situation, I'm sure I would think the same. However, I'm not. So I tend to be strongly against citizens or criminals having weapons. I'm sure if a family member were assaulted, etc, I would change my opinion. As yet that hasn't happened. so I'm still against the proliferation of guns.

Please accept my opinion with cordiality, just as I have accepted and respected yours.

Saludos y suerte en todo lo que haces en tu vida.
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: The magic question

Postby teamoperu » Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:03 pm

gringito wrote:@teamoperu:
I understand from your deviating answers that you are not honestly interested in dealing with an honest question. Furthermore, I understand that you fear that law abiding gun owners become mass murderers. Thanks.

chi chi wrote:NO GUNS = NO SHOOTINGS
Throw anyone who possesses a gun for a least 25 years in jail and less people will commit the crime of possessing a gun.


Nope, you are wrong. I haven't deviated one itsy bitsy teeney weeny even one standard deviation. You asked “What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!” Yes, you did say more afraid. I rejected your statement and asked you to prove what you wrote because I doubt very much that people are more afraid of legally armed citizens than they are of illegally armed thugs. Probably the reverse.

You pretended you wanted a serious discussion to improve your understanding. Apparently not.

I doubt you are truly interested, but put me in the no guns camp. I believe it is better not to have guns, legally or illegally, in the hands of thugs or nutjobs.

Are you aware that legally armed police, trained to use the weapon in crisis situations, do shoot innocent citizens when they start blasting away?
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: The magic question

Postby ironchefchris » Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:48 pm

Complex situation. Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what have yous. I don't believe there's an easy, one-size-fits-all answer, but I'll make some further observations.

Unlike the concept or original sin, criminals are not born criminals. Every criminal was once a "law abiding citizen" until they broke the law and became a criminal. One could argue pretty much everyone is a criminal because of the huge amount of laws on the books that virtually make us all criminals. For the purposes of this discussion I'll use the word criminal to define a violent thug who harms or intends to harm or intimidate another person - not someone who breaks a traffic law or some other such minor "crime." Anyway, the armed guy on the street who's robbing people was once a "law abiding citizen" before he became a "criminal." Any law abiding citizen who can legally purchase a gun can use that legally purchased gun at some point in time to commit a crime. Not every law abiding citizen who buys a gun will do this, but obviously many criminals purchased a gun before turning to crime.

I remember once reading how statistically most people use the gun they purchased for something other than their original intent. Buy a gun to protect to the house, don't be surprised when it's used for some other purpose, such as in a "crime of passion," found by a child or someone else who accidentally fires it, etc..

I don't buy the argument that the right to bear arms equals the right to bear any arms of the person's choosing. Heavy duty assault weaponry is a bit much for home protection or hunting. I understand the argument of guns protect us from a tyrannical government but in man places it's a little too late for that. In the US, I don't care how big or how many guns you have - the government has far more. No militia, no matter how well armed, is going to overthrow the US government. This will differ in other countries.

When it comes to people being more afraid of armed criminals or armed law abiding citizens I think that the average person is just afraid of getting shot. A bullet from the (same caliber) gun of a law abiding citizen is just as deadly as a bullet from the gun of a criminal. I think people are afraid that if more people are walking around armed, there will be a higher likelihood of gunfire. Some guy tries to rob a convenience store and some armed law abiding citizen responds by drawing his weapon and next thing you know there's a shootout. Perhaps others draw and fire, increasing the likelihood that somebody's going to get shot. Could be the criminal, could be someone else in the store. A lot of people would say let the criminal get the money in the case register, leave without incident, and let the cops deal with it. I don't want to risk getting shot over whatever amount is in the register no matter how much it is. Probably not much due to safe drops. Rob a persons home and it's more likely just to be home invader vs. home owner. Far less likelihood of random people getting shot. Here I have no problem at all with the homeowner owning and drawing his firearms to protect himself, his family, and possessions (if they're that important to him). Maybe a stray bullet goes onto the neighbors property and if the crime takes place in an apartment building it becomes more complicated.

There's always going to be crime and there will always be tragedies because of guns. There's always going to be horrific car accidents and tragic deaths because of cars. I don't think that's reason to ban them, but it does make sense to control them. We don't let kids drive and there are rules against driving drunk. There should be rules and restrictions on gun ownership as well.

I think opinions vary depending on the culture. People in the US seem to love, love, love their guns. I think one has to differentiate between a gun being carried on the streets of populated area and those kept in the home. Between guns meant solely for killing other people and those used for hunting or protection from large animals in rural areas.

It seems people from the UK are content with the status quo as far as gun ownership. I'm sure there are ways for criminals to get guns but if it's extremely difficult there's bound to be less problems. I don't know the specifics, but perhaps gun crimes in the UK are more criminal against criminal as opposed to being used against law abiding citizens?

I see one major flaw in the current restriction on gun availability in the UK. Should the zombie apocalypse take place, those in the UK will wish they had better access to guns so they can take out zombies from afar instead of having to get more in a hand to decaying hand type combat. Especially if they turn out to be those really fast, aggressive type of zombies. :shock:
User avatar
fanning
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Lima

Re: The magic question

Postby fanning » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:10 pm

Also looking forward to season 5 of 'The walking dead' ? :D
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: The magic question

Postby ironchefchris » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:36 pm

I've seen Walking Dead except for the second part of the last season. I had gotten to the point where I realized I only continued watching because I had come this far along, but I started getting the feeling around Season 3 that I was watching empty calories. Too many situations of characters doing stupid things.

If I were on that show I'd make the suggestion of going to one of those beautiful little islands off the southern coast of Georgia, clearing out the zombies, and grow some food in a nice zombie free environment. I don't think zombies know how to sail, do they?
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:10 pm

@Sergio Bernales: I appreciate your kind words and respect your opinion. You would be surprised that I share this opinion nearly entirely but not cmpletely as far as my European home country is concerned.

@teamoperu: Many empty words, compadre.

ironchefchris wrote:Unlike the concept or original sin, criminals are not born criminals. Every criminal was once a "law abiding citizen" until they broke the law and became a criminal.

One could argue pretty much everyone is a criminal because of the huge amount of laws on the books that virtually make us all criminals.

Sure, but the way you write it it sounds like the expulsion from Paradise or the condemnation of Robin Hood which surely is not the right way to see these things in context with the violent thug type criminal.

ironchefchris wrote:I don't buy the argument that the right to bear arms equals the right to bear any arms of the person's choosing.

You don`t have to buy it. Even in the USA certain weapons such as automatic weapons (defined as military weapons) are prohibited for civilians. Naturally, 50 years ago you could even own cannon in the States. And nothing happened.

ironchefchris wrote:When it comes to people being more afraid of armed criminals or armed law abiding citizens I think that the average person is just afraid of getting shot.

As far as I can recall it in the USA police cause more collateral death than armed citizens…
Anyway:
I agree: The average person is just afraid of getting shot.
(Surprise: Even gun owners are afraid of being shot!!!)

However, does this justify taking effective self-defense means away from the people?

How can ANY person exercise his right to self-defense then?
With his/her bare hands? A 80 year old granny against a 20 year old thug????

ironchefchris wrote:There should be rules and restrictions on gun ownership as well.

I agree. In many countries these rules exist. But there should be the right to bear guns.

ironchefchris wrote:I think opinions vary depending on the culture.

To a certain extent. Even in the old world people had the right to possess and legitimately use guns. However, these rights were taken away from them. Now, they are conditioned to consider any gun as risk and not as a tool which protects them.
However, the same average citizens believes that guns in the hands of the police and the State are ok BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE PROTECT THEM and THE STATE and THE POLICE do their very best in order to foster this false feeling of being protected.

Does this give the average citizen the right to render the fundamental right of the people to self-defense null and void?! Surely not - but it is already reality.

The average citizens that supports such movements has taken ad accepted the ethical decision to SACRIFICE helpless and defenseless people as sacrificial lambs arguing that the CHANCE is statistically low that anybody (especially he/she himself/herself) will ever become a victim of crime.
This is a swarm mentality hping that THEY will not be eaten, a mentality which indirectly makes them a partner of crime.

ironchefchris wrote:It seems people from the UK are content with the status quo as far as gun ownership. I'm sure there are ways for criminals to get guns but if it's extremely difficult there's bound to be less problems. I don't know the specifics, but perhaps gun crimes in the UK are more criminal against criminal as opposed to being used against law abiding citizens?

I see one major flaw in the current restriction on gun availability in the UK. Should the zombie apocalypse take place, those in the UK will wish they had better access to guns so they can take out zombies from afar instead of having to get more in a hand to decaying hand type combat. Especially if they turn out to be those really fast, aggressive type of zombies. :shock:

GB has been practically disarmed.
First the guns were banned.
The result: crime which involved knives increased dramatically.
Secondly: knives have been practically outlawed.
Had crime in GB decreased? As far as I am informed: NOPE!

What happened to the people?
Again: sacrificial lambs.

I remember very well the case of the UK soldier that was savagely murdered/beheaded by a Muslim about one year ago (“Woolwich attack”). The soldier was unarmed. He had no chance. How was he murdered? With a knife!
What did the police do in the end (they took 30 min to arrive at the scene)?
Well...guess what: they SHOT the murderer. A little bit too late.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt-ySTx3xH8

What next? A ISIS fighter/sympathizer running with an AK47 through the pedestrian zone opening fire on everything that moves?
Sacrificial lambs! Meat for the forensics!

I cannot remember where I found this one but it is damn, damn true:

Image
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: The magic question

Postby chi chi » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:34 am

gringito wrote:How can ANY person exercise his right to self-defense then?
With his/her bare hands? A 80 year old granny against a 20 year old thug????


Most likely, the thug will snatch her handbag and run off. If the old lady (or anyone else) shoots the thief in the back then she will go to jail and not the thief.
(in some countries, it appears that criminals have more rights than their victims)

(around the corner where I live, there's an old people's home. If all those people are given a gun 'to protect' themselves' then I will make a detour when I go to work. Imagine, a few people suffering from dementia walking around with shotgun. :shock: )
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:28 pm

chi chi wrote:
gringito wrote:How can ANY person exercise his right to self-defense then?
With his/her bare hands? A 80 year old granny against a 20 year old thug????


Most likely, the thug will snatch her handbag and run off. If the old lady (or anyone else) shoots the thief in the back then she will go to jail and not the thief.
(in some countries, it appears that criminals have more rights than their victims)

(around the corner where I live, there's an old people's home. If all those people are given a gun 'to protect' themselves' then I will make a detour when I go to work. Imagine, a few people suffering from dementia walking around with shotgun. :shock: )


Suspiro…Chi Chi! Suspiro!!!

New York:
In NY nearly no civilian is allowed to carry a gun (apart from the governing mayor and his amiguitos who made this state law). In the USA, NY is one of the big exceptions regarding the right to carry a gun. Seems that NY politicians are not much concerned about constitutional rights.

The old lady & Co.:
Chi Chi: You cannot predict what will happen. Saying that the thug will “most likely snatch her bag” is a mere speculation.
Naturally, it is (usually) NOT allowed to shoot a thug into the back though legislation has defined some circumstances in which this would be legitimate. However, it is heard in legal circles that NYPD is well known for this type of "art".
As to people suffering from dementia: as far as I know these people are not allowed to carry guns, even in Texas. Consequently, you can sleep quietly tonight.

In general Chi Chi:
You will (usually) not be present to hold my hand or help me out of the mess when the thugs assault me (or any other third party). Neither will the police. They will only scratch my rests from the street and hand it over to the forensics when your theories do not work.

So, what´s with the protection of the old lady & Co.?
Fodder for the thusg so that they do not jump on you?

Good luck in NY!
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: The magic question

Postby chi chi » Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:01 am

gringito wrote:In NY nearly no civilian is allowed to carry a gun (apart from the governing mayor and his amiguitos who made this state law). In the USA, NY is one of the big exceptions regarding the right to carry a gun. Seems that NY politicians are not much concerned about constitutional rights.


That's why NY is such a safe city. I've been everywhere in NY and never felt unsafe. Neither after dark.

Those constitutional rights date back from September 25, 1789.
Time to review those medieval amendents.

The eigth amendment: '' Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.''
...in many states, the death penalty is still carried out.

Those amendments can easily be changed.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: The magic question

Postby ironchefchris » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:09 pm

gringito wrote:As to people suffering from dementia: as far as I know these people are not allowed to carry guns, even in Texas. Consequently, you can sleep quietly tonight.

I don't know if thats true or not but I'd be surprised. They love their guns in Texas.

chi chi wrote:
gringito wrote:In NY nearly no civilian is allowed to carry a gun (apart from the governing mayor and his amiguitos who made this state law). In the USA, NY is one of the big exceptions regarding the right to carry a gun. Seems that NY politicians are not much concerned about constitutional rights.


That's why NY is such a safe city. I've been everywhere in NY and never felt unsafe. Neither after dark.

Those constitutional rights date back from September 25, 1789.
Time to review those medieval amendents.

The eigth amendment: '' Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.''
...in many states, the death penalty is still carried out.

Those amendments can easily be changed.

I think you're wearing the rose colored glasses common to someone enchanted with their new city, but if you were to live there and not just be passing through I'm sure your opinion would change. NYC has changed over the years and is no longer as dangerous as it was in the 70's, but it's not exactly a safe city, especially not "everywhere" and certainly not after dark. Spend an entire night strolling through Central Park (not just the perimeter) and if you're still alive at daybreak tell us about it. (Please don't do this - bad idea)

In many states (such as Texas), the death penalty isn't considered to be cruel or unusual. Texas even executes the mentally retarded. It's against the US Constitution but the Federal Government doesn't seem to care.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... nyway.html

As far as the US Constitution being out of date there is no general consensus on the topic. Many feel it is a beautiful document that should not be changed at all while others feel it is out of date and should be more flexible to reflect the needs of modern times. One thing that is not argued no matter how they feel about the Constitution is that it is anything but easy to change the Constitution and its' amendments. The US Congress has considered "approximately 11,372 amendments" from 1789 through December 31, 2008, the most recent tally available, according to the Statistics and Lists section of the United States Senate website, yet The Constitution, with its 27 amendments, has been amended only 17 times since the first 10—which make up the Bill of Rights—were ratified in 1791. That's a 0.0015% success rate. Based on this and knowing the political and cultural climate of the US, I can guarantee you that the second amendment, right to bear arms, will never be repealed, "easily" or otherwise.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -27-amend/
User avatar
mickd
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:59 pm
Location: Caerphilly Wales UK, and San Isidro Lima Peru

Re: The magic question

Postby mickd » Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:50 pm

I was in Singapore in the late 60's, and the laws on the carrying of guns were, in the execution of a crime, carrying a gun, was an automatic 10 year prison sentence. If the gun was discharged (nobody hurt, it could have been fired in the air), automatic death penalty.
Also note that prison in Singapore, is extremely strict, no demonstrations allowed there for better conditions.
Strange to relate, guns seemed to have disappeared from crime activities.
Lone Rider

Re: The magic question

Postby Lone Rider » Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:59 pm

What is so strange that the use of guns has disappeared? Seems obvious. What would be interesting did crime go away too.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:19 pm

ironchefchris wrote:In many states (such as Texas), the death penalty isn't considered to be cruel or unusual. Texas even executes the mentally retarded. It's against the US Constitution but the Federal Government doesn't seem to care.


What happens if the States brakes its own laws and moral rules?
NOTHING!
This is precisely the reason why citizens should be very sceptical if someone intends to take their rights away or pokes around in their emails.

While I am against the death penalty (reason: it is impossible to correct a judicial error in this case) I have to admit that the following argument of death penalty advocates is valid to a certain extent : Why should the "price" for illegally taking a human life be lower than that?
Which brings me to the next aspect:

mickd wrote:I was in Singapore in the late 60's, and the laws on the carrying of guns were, in the execution of a crime, carrying a gun, was an automatic 10 year prison sentence. If the gun was discharged (nobody hurt, it could have been fired in the air), automatic death penalty.
Also note that prison in Singapore, is extremely strict, no demonstrations allowed there for better conditions.
Strange to relate, guns seemed to have disappeared from crime activities.

So how is the mere possibility (...) of violence by means of guns fought in this case?
By more violence or by the threat of more violence.
In this case I even have to say: by excessive violence since the punishment does not appear to be appropriate thereby infringing the common juristic principle that the punshment has to be appropriate and not excessive in view of the damage caused, i.e. the crime commited.

Which brings me to the next aspect:
Lone Rider wrote:What is so strange that the use of guns has disappeared? Seems obvious. What would be interesting did crime go away too.

The use of guns did not disappear (not even in Singapore).
To the contrary!
The use of guns is only monopolized.
This means that "The State" and its institutions such as police and military and priviledge persons such as politicians, some business people etc. are the only ones entitled to bear guns. This means that that a certain group of people has the priviledge to guns while the vast majority has not.
Privileges, however, generate discrimination and discrimination generates privileges.
The rest of the society is simply rendered defenseless, in particular defenseles against the State...if it becomes despotic.
This will never happen?
ok....ask the Indians, the Armenians, the Germans, the Russians, the ... etc. etc. etc.
Oh...you can trust a policeman more than a fellow citizen?
Wake up (and open your eyes in particular in NY or Peru...)!

The secondary effect of giving away the responsibility for your personal safety to the State and its institutions is giving in a considerable amount of your freedom and the freedom of your fellow citizens.
We already HAVE a police and surveillance State. Ask the NSA what you have emailed two days ago...

Cui bono?
User avatar
alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3044
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The magic question

Postby alan » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:09 pm

An informative and funny video on the topic of gun control in Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: The magic question

Postby chi chi » Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:51 am

gringito wrote:in particular defenseles against the State...


Indeed, that's why certain groups of people in Iraq and Syria like ISIS started to arm themselves with guns to shoot people and knives to cut of people their heads . Because they want to defend themselves against the state.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: The magic question

Postby ironchefchris » Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:08 am

I'm not supporting ISIS or their methods, but Syria would certainly be an example of a state one would need to defend themselves from. Fundamentalists......
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: The magic question

Postby gringito » Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:58 pm

chi chi wrote:
gringito wrote:in particular defenseles against the State...


Indeed, that's why certain groups of people in Iraq and Syria like ISIS started to arm themselves with guns to shoot people and knives to cut of people their heads . Because they want to defend themselves against the state.

In Syria the average people are double screXXd! Assad (=the State) & ISIS. Pest & Cholera...

Anyway...ChiCHi...reading some history book may elucidate you. However, take care WHO wrote them...

Return to “Expat Conversations”

cron

Login  •  Register