Offensive Squid

Post edited 3:43 pm – June 21, 2011 by Andrea_A

Ok, probably I am responsible for some of those posts. A little bit off-topic from the "Malak" thread.

I think, this would be somewhat like militia in Switzerland, having a strictly defensive mission. Every soldier has uniform, weapon and some ammo at home. "Switzerland doesn't have an army — it is an army!" Maybe this had been the intention of the "Second Amendment" in USA… but I
think, this is mined territory.

Lanius said:

Got that impression from some of the posts here..

I mean, police officers carry gun in most places. And they are not superhuman, nor well trained, nor exceptionally stable people. Not more than average, I would say.

Maybe training/counseling would be crucial: "With great power comes great responsibility". Sadly I've got no information how candidates for police etc. get tested, how/(if?) they exclude those susceptible for abusing the given power.

Maybe in gun-banning countries the authorities hadn't to be aware of being shot in situations like traffic controls (with mean persons involved) and could dare to be more polite.

And because, if shit really hit the fan and I rounded a corner to find five nazis kicking someone who is laying on the ground and all bloody,  I want to be able to do more than just call the cops. They take minutes to arrive, I can take out a gun and chamber a round inside two seconds.

You forgot the sixth Nazi at lookout … having a gun, too.   Would your weapon stop a raging bull? Or a bear? 

And a gun also won't help you against the so-called authorities. (Squidgate, to bring the topic at least partially back to Watts.)

A couple of year ago I stumbled into a situation, similar to the described one. Coming from late shift, I noticed three guys pushing another one from his bicycle. He fell, they stopped and started kicking him.

I stopped: "Uh-hum. Uh-HUM!" They didn't stop beating.

Asking their victim "May I help you?" I moved to the entrance of a house, ringing all bells.

"What are you mixing in, bitch! He's got outstanding debts!"

"This is not the appropriate way to enforce a debt," I stated (with one hand still ringing the bells, with the other dialing the emergency call).

They turned to their victim again. "I'll call the police." And I did. They heared me talking with the officer. In the meantime two young men, coming from work, too, had noticed the situation (and an old women in the house had opened the window). Then the aggressors decided to leave, one of them taking the victim's bike (this theft had been prevented by one of the witnesses). This had stood up in the meantime, the police appeared, asked if they should call an ambulance (no, thanks), took our personal data and told me, that I had been in a quite dangerous situation: They had already been known as drug dealers … But if the police would have searched me, I would have been in severe trouble: carrying an illegal fishing knife in my daypack (dedicated for the hypothetic rapist).

Sure, criminals should not have guns, but like someone said.. preventing gun crime by restricting lawful gun ownership is like trying to fight prostiution by tightening marriage licenses. Look at Britain.. they banned all guns, yet gun crime has gone slightly up, and now people can get rich by making crappy submachineguns using completely legal machine tools.

Whats next? Bans on lathes and milling machines?

Ubiquitous availability of firearms could even make access to illegal weapons easier. How many weapons get stolen by burglars? (Or their former owner is at least telling this to the police …) An example is the situation at the border to Mexico: drugs get smuggled into the USA, weapons (legally bought in the USA) back to Mexico [1].

My 2 cents: you wanna prevent nuts going on killing sprees: make fraternization mandatory for gun owners, and institute collective punishments. Meaning, every gun owner would have to go and have beers and talk shit with fellow gun owners several times a month..

Something similar (minus punishment) is implemented in Germany for target shooting. You have to become member in a club, and to practice there for about half a year. Then you could get allowed to buy own weapons (but you have to lock them away at home).

Your rule might prevent some people from getting a gun (maybe especially those with good reasons). Those, who cannot afford time (or think of so-called social events as complete waste of time). These circles should also have to be psychologically supervised.

If one of them snaps, and kills or seriously wounds someone, everyone who was supposed to be close to that person goes to jail for a month or two…

What, if the owner is using his gun for poaching? And in the case of committing suicide?

If someone is really about to run amok, he might think of this as "acceptable collateral damage" (if he even thinks in this moment). Or, as happened in Winnenden/Germany, the son had taken his father's guns. (The father got sentenced to suspended jailtime.)

Also, bonus points and beers for someone who can produce convincing evidence that banning guns reduces the overall murder rate. Because Aussies banned many guns, and the results were inconclusive. The murder rate continuted dropping, just as before, only murder weapons changed. And imo, better get shot at than stabbed. Less fatal often.

You are absolutely right here. They find other possibilities … http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8015977.stm

But on the other hands, with firearms involved even a rather funny situation may escalate
… http://news.ninemsn.com.au/wor…..her-a-kiss

FYI, Switzerland, a gun liberal country, has a lower murder rate than the UK. Russia, where all handguns are banned for civilians has a murder rate like you would not believe… etc etc. IMO, murder rate is a function of social composition, poverty, etc.. not of gun presence.

Russia is a special case … Mafia, corruption, probably lots of illegal guns around, etc.

But I am addressing suicide, too. The authors of this study published in "European Psychiatry" [2] quoted the Swiss Federal Minister Samuel Schmid: ‘‘A person, who wants to commit a suicide or homicide, will always find an opportunity to do that.’’ In the discussion the authors stated that using firearms are a fast and "safe" method, frequently used impulsively.

Lanius said:

As to police officer training, I think it's fair to say many civilians who carry guns practice more with them than the police. Police in many places have very lax regulations.. such as mild qualifications once a year.

I didn't think of weapon practice, I'd rather wanted to address the psychological implications. Deescalation training, how to calm down a situation (without pepper spray/gun). To apply exactly the amount of force needed in a situation.

Maybe some people interested in the job aren't the right ones.

Suicide? In countries without guns ,people choose to hang themselves. Because most of them don't drop-hang themselves, they die a fairly protracted and horrible death. While I don't see suicide as a solution, to me it seems as a human right. Why should someone pay more than they already would in their consciences if someone they know kills themselves?

Or taking pills, but not the right ones, or not at the adequate dose … maybe it would be an exit in case of severe disease. Recently Gunter Sachs chose this way, not willing to allow Alzheimer's to etch away his personality.

Poaching is a different matter. IMO, there should be collective penalties for that, mild ones, if it's proven he did that with a legally owned weapon.

Then I should use springes, and take a gun only for my safety …  if there are bears around.

Would your weapon stop a raging bull? Or a bear?

The service pistol I'm carrying wouldn't, unless the bear were small, or I hit it really well. Then, it'd likely scare the bear off.. heard of such a case in Slovakia some time back. Guy got jumped by a bear in the woods, emptied a whole Glock magazine at the bear, and the bear run away. Probably missed most of the time..

I watched a TV documentary about a tribe in India, living since generations together with lions in the same area. They are Hindus, and religion does not allow them to kill animals. But their job is producing leather. If the lions kill an animal (normally a deer or a cow), they scare them away using slingshots. And the lions have learned their lesson: if a lion approaches a man, he only has to show the sling …

I read about people in Kamerun, frequently stealing lion's prey …

In Bangladesh, in an area with man-eating tigers, lumbermen are wearing masks at the back of their head. The tiger thinks he cannot sneak up …

So there are even ways to deal with dangerous animals without guns (well, those people probably won't be able to afford them, anyway).

But a .454 casull revolver, which can be purchased under €1000 can stop a half ton charging grizzly bear. In fact, last time I asked about that hand cannon, the store clerk said  the only legitimate use for such a gun is self-defense against dangerous animals.

The kinetic energy of the projectiles is comparable to an assault rifle
(2500J), furthermore, they are heavier than assault rifle rounds, and
have a bigger diamater, so they are possibly more damaging..

I read something similar on a tour guides website about Svalbard. You are not only allowed to carry a gun there, you are required to, if you are leaving town. And his opinion about revolver vs. polar bear had been that it would be acceptable only for low-risk jobs (pilots, fishermen etc.), not for camping or hiking. The problem is that you should not shoot the bear if possible, but if it doesn't stop on warning shots you must have shots left for a kill … he recommends a so-called pumpgun.

I'll never have issues about using a gun as "security tool" against animals.

Do you know "Primeval"? It's a British SciFi TV series about so-called anomalies, bringing prehistoric (and future) wild animals to London …

I know it will look like conspiracy theories.. but the truth of the matter is that problem is not US gun-owners, but the US government.

US civilian gun owners cannot legally buy any full-auto weapons built after 1986. This means even piece of shit submachineguns that can be made for $200 cost about $4000 in the US.Real assault rifles cost $10-15000, and are closely watched by officials.

Spiegel said that the cartels are also interested in handguns, which are illegal for civilians in Mexico. And that they are cheaper in the U.S. than on South American black market.

In the case I mentioned in the above post, the weapons used could be traced
back:
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02…..texas-man/

Mexico cartels want high quality, fully automatic weaponry. … On the other hand, US has been shipping surplus military weaponry as 'aid' to many latin American countries, where corrupt army officers can be bribed to sell that to the cartels.

Spiegel noticed this as second source, too.

And these days, there is a huge scandal brewing. ATF wanted to have a bigger case for curbs on US gun owners, so it set up an operation (code named "Fast and Furious"), where they made US gun shops to sell guns to suspected narco agents, noted the numbers, so then they would have more US guns showing up in crimes in Mexico. Project Gunrunner. Congress is going to hold hearings on that soon.

Using Agent Provocateurs seem to me generally a bad idea. And maybe (as shown above), they had to taste their own medicine.

Post edited 2:32 pm – June 27, 2011 by Andrea_A

 Lanius said:

Mexico bans handguns that can use ammunition of the same caliber as military. So.. no 9x19, .45 ACP etc. But I doubt handguns are the chief problem in Mexico. They are purely defensive, and far less useful than rifles in pitched combat. The only use of handguns is for self defense or suicidal assassinations..

Or as persuasion aid in hijacking. And — even if not explicitely noted in the article — I think of USA as source for ammo.

True about weapons. Animals can learn. For example, wolves who have seen others wolves shot are wary of guns.

Wolves may learn this way. But loners as Polar Bears or Tigers (and other wild cats)?

Have you ever heard about the "Coral Snake paradox"?

The True Coral Snakes are deadly venomous. Other snake species mimick them, as flower flies look similar to wasps. And a third group are the less venomous False Coral Snakes. The theory had been that the rather harmless ones are taking profit from the deadly venom. But this mimicry would only work if the imitated species is much more common. So the equation didn't make sense. After as well as true corals and unvenomous snakes were set in the roles of imitators, it fits.

A bird catching a harmless snake would learn that it is a meal. If it catches a True Coral, it will either suceed (learn snake=meal) — or die. If it catches a False Coral, it has a good chance to get bitten — and to survive and learn to avoid coloured snakes.

True, there are ways, but I'd say it's only prudent to keep a gun somewhere, in case they don't work.

As I told, they simply cannot afford them. The average income in Bangladesh is a little bit higher than 1$/day.

And a gun would be almost useless without adequate training (well … it would produce loud noise). I would never catch the idea of using a chainsaw without proper instructions.

That's true. Police around here is pretty good, but in other places, it has unsavoury individuals. Special units are also known for being too ready to beat up people on very slight pretenses.

One event happening at a protest demonstration in Stuttgart last years: An old man throwing chestnuts onto a water cannon and got hit by high-pressure water-jet (he might have become blind). Surely this had been a provocation, but he wouldn't have been able to do any damage to the armed truck.

Or "Officer Bubbles" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..GMTm3QRwEc in Toronto, interpreting soap bubbles blown into his direction as an assault. Well … at least he became a Youtube star.

IMO, unless one has a severe personality disorder, just being aware of the implications of firing a gun outside of a firing range really puts a damper on aggression. One bullet produces thick stacks of paperwork.

Not (in case of security personnel), if you know your co-workers will cover you. Then it may end up with the victim convinced for "assault".

<irony>If they would have used a gun, maybe they wouldn't have had a need for doing so.</irony>

Most people who carry a gun say it makes them more cautious and less angry, they are aware that they should keep calm. On the other hand, it makes one more assertive, knowing that the other party can't resort to force.

Regarding to my own experience, this applies to any kind of weapon, even to an umbrella or hiking pole …

Edit: About 100 children are dying per year in texas – due to accidents with firearms (German TV).

Post edited 3:02 pm – July 19, 2011 by Andrea_A

Lanius said:

Or as persuasion aid in hijacking. And — even if not explicitely noted in the article — I think of USA as source for ammo.

Problem with Mexico is the US drug market. If drugs were legal, and not smuggled, there'd be no war in Mexico.. and far less hijackings. 

My opinion, too. And legalizing (or at least proven addicts could get their drugs prescribed) would help on some other levels. As the addicts have no need to prostitute themselves or to commit crimes (shoplifting, other thefts). The illegal drug business won't be less profitable. 

The worse health conditions of drug users often appears from the "quality" of the illegal stuff and their living conditions [1]. Abscesses, sometimes leading to Tetanus and Necrotising Fasciitis are not uncommon [2, 3].

About 100 children are dying per year in texas – due to accidents with firearms

Darwin's tweaking his beard. IMO, society would be better off if different levels of intelligence had different rights, and maybe guns shouldn't be had by stupid people. I personally never leave a gun unattended, and always lock the ones I'm not wearing  if children or drunks are expected. 

I would not fix this explicitely on intelligence, rather on being able to handle weapons responsible. Maybe sometimes it would be better to allow a gun to an idiot living in the wilderness, only using it for hunting, than to a highly intelligent Borderliner downtown.

But as practical approach a "weapon licence", similar to a driving licence might be an option. In Germany, somebody planning to become a hunter has to take a course (about 6 months, two evenings each week, ~ 700 €), ending with an exam — not only shooting and weapon technology, also knowledge about game, how to prepare meat, law and much more.

Different rights? Ok, but based on which criteria? Intelligence tests? An academic title? (What about a person sacrifying his/her studies to care for an ill parent?) I think, it wont't be easy to get this system into a fair balance.

Bears?

Bears do know what guns are, if you hunt them some. Grizzlies in areas with bear hunts are far more shy of humans than in those where they are protected. They also know a gunshot means hunters, which means easy meal, so sometimes they steal hunters' kills, especially if the hunter were clumsy and the animal has run off to die somewhere else..

Well … that's the "cleptocracy". A reason for taking a bloodhound with you (though paradoxically this might attract the bears). In Europe, the big predators wolf and bear got wiped out. A couple of years ago our "problem bear" Bruno got killed after few weeks in Germany.  The most dangerous wild animal we normally have to deal with are wild boars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related Contrary to wolves they even live in the town.

______

[1] https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejournals/abstract/ains/doi/10.1055/s-2000-11989

[2] https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejournals/abstract/suchttherapie/doi/10.1055/s-2003-38100

[3] https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejournals/abstract/ains/doi/10.1055/s-2007-995112

In Europe, the big predators wolf and bear got wiped out.

Next time I stumble upon a bear in the woods.. I hope I'll be able to dispel it by convincing it it's been wiped out. 
Slovakia has something like 1500 bears on an area of 10,000 km^2. People get mauled from time to time..

Smart narcisstic jerks are the bane of mankind. They believe they can do no evil, rationalize anything by picking their reasons.

At least this one did not go into politics.