Guns: Europeans taking a page from Americans

[Baruch]

That's great.  For those people who are averse to guns, I highly recommend pepper spray or a taser.  They're not as effective as a gun, but they're better than nothing.  I hope that the women who can't get a gun in one of these countries can at least get one of those two items.  I understand that even those non-lethal means are banned in some places. 

I think it's criminal that people are denied the means to defend themselves.

Govs and Corps don't want you to defend yourself, ruins their day.

[SilentFutility]

That's great.  For those people who are averse to guns, I highly recommend pepper spray or a taser.  They're not as effective as a gun, but they're better than nothing.  I hope that the women who can't get a gun in one of these countries can at least get one of those two items.  I understand that even those non-lethal means are banned in some places. 

I think it's criminal that people are denied the means to defend themselves.

Pepper spray will only stop attackers who aren't that determined in the first place, are difficult to actually use effectively, and if there is any sort of wind it is just as likely to end up in your face. It might buy you some time to escape, if used very effectively, which is quite difficult, basically.

Unfortunately, anything that is intended to be a weapon is illegal in the UK (using it as an example). If you carry a stick or even keep it at home intending it to be a self-defence weapon that is technically illegal. You are only allowed to defend yourself with weapons that you happen to improvise and pick up once you are in danger/attacked.

Yep, you read that correctly, you are not allowed to keep a stick for the purpose of defending your home.

This has the excellent terrifying result of criminals being the only ones to carry and possess weapons.

[Unbeliever]

Zombies a head shot, zombies only.

Yeah, and always double tap!

[josephpalazzo]

Pepper spray will only stop attackers who aren't that determined in the first place, are difficult to actually use effectively, and if there is any sort of wind it is just as likely to end up in your face. It might buy you some time to escape, if used very effectively, which is quite difficult, basically.

Unfortunately, anything that is intended to be a weapon is illegal in the UK (using it as an example). If you carry a stick or even keep it at home intending it to be a self-defence weapon that is technically illegal. You are only allowed to defend yourself with weapons that you happen to improvise and pick up once you are in danger/attacked.

Yep, you read that correctly, you are not allowed to keep a stick for the purpose of defending your home.

This has the excellent terrifying result of criminals being the only ones to carry and possess weapons.

Yeah, but if you carry a baseball bat with the intention of practicing and improving your batting skills, wouldn't that be legal?...

[jonb]

Don't need to here in the east end of London because of the constant presence of Islamic police patrols.

Oh and grannies with handbags.

https://youtu.be/9UgsGEmZu7w

[SilentFutility]

Yeah, but if you carry a baseball bat with the intention of practicing and improving your batting skills, wouldn't that be legal?...

Yes, but if you defended yourself with a baseball bat and upon being questioned it became clear that you were carrying it around and were not on your way to a baseball game or practice then you'd be exposing yourself to a very realistic likelihood of being charged with carrying an offensive weapon.

Unless you've got a robust excuse for carrying something that makes a good weapon you have the potential to get in a lot of trouble for defending yourself with it. Essentially, if defending yourself with an object is at all premeditated you're breaking the law.

Of course, if you're already a serial law-breaker, then no worries: shoot, stab and bludgeon away!

[Baruch]

This is why I disapprove of open carry!  Sure ... you were brandishing a sidearm ... because you were going to an NRA shooting match?

[Jack89]

This is why I disapprove of open carry!  Sure ... you were brandishing a sidearm ... because you were going to an NRA shooting match?

I don't approve of open carry either, it just alarms people who aren't used to seeing firearms.  I think it's discourteous.  Concealed carry is the way to go if you feel the need to carry.  Concealed carry is perfectly legal in 6 US states now without a permit or registration.  They're referred to as constitutional carry states.  2 more states joined the ranks just this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

[Shiranu]

This has the excellent terrifying result of criminals being the only ones to carry and possess weapons.

Horrifying.

United States: In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
United Kingdom: 10.

Intentional homicide rates...

United States: 14,827 deaths (4.7 per 100,000 a  year)
United Kingdom: 653 deaths (1.0 per 100,000 a year)

If these criminals have all the guns, they sure are doing a terrible job of exploiting the advantage...

Having a gun in the house also makes you statistically more likely to be shot and even more-so than that if you are a woman.

And so on, and so forth... but these numbers are nothing new, they are pointed out time and time again, and people just close their ears and say, "Lalala, guns are cool, guns are a RIGHT, so the numbers don't matter!". And the circle will be unbroken until the end of time, or the quality of education increases. At least in civilized countries like the UK, people who completely disregard the actual facts of gun ownership don't make up the majority.

[Jack89]

And so on, and so forth... but these numbers are nothing new, they are pointed out time and time again, and people just close their ears and say, "Lalala, guns are cool, guns are a RIGHT, so the numbers don't matter!". And the circle will be unbroken until the end of time, or the quality of education increases. At least in civilized countries like the UK, people who completely disregard the actual facts of gun ownership don't make up the majority.

The one reason you avoid is that people want guns for protection, the subject of the original post.  People in Austria, apparently most of them women, want guns to protect themselves from a perceived threat, which seems to be justified if you look at the increase in violent crime.  In Austria it's a supply and demand issue, but people in most other western European countries don't have the option at all.  So for them the numbers probably don't matter, yours or mine, and rightly so. 
Once it's clear that police cannot protect you all of the time, or even a vast majority of the time, it's not so hard to understand that you are responsible for your own safety and protection.  Just like it's always been.  I can only imagine how people must feel about their governments depriving them of the means to protect themselves, especially with hundreds of thousands of immigrants flooding across their borders. 

[Baruch]

Unfortunately ... if the police did their job, and the government didn't oppress the people, then far fewer folks would want guns for reasons other than hunting.  Because of .gov failure ... and Americans are naturally violent.  British criminals don't have time to exploit their weapon advantage, because they are too busy making trips to the dentist, and watching the new Bond movies ;-)

[Jack89]

Unfortunately ... if the police did their job, and the government didn't oppress the people, then far fewer folks would want guns for reasons other than hunting.  Because of .gov failure ... and Americans are naturally violent.  British criminals don't have time to exploit their weapon advantage, because they are too busy making trips to the dentist, and watching the new Bond movies ;-)

It's a common misconception that police are there to protect citizens.  It's just not logistically possible.  They may indirectly reduce crime by apprehending criminals after the fact, but they're usually not quick enough to stop a violent crime in progress, that's if you're able to take the time to call them in the first place.

I don't know if it's the case that Americans are more violent, or if Europeans are just passive to a fault.  It's all well and good when everyone is tolerant of each other and plays nice.  I absolutely loved living in Germany for three years in the 90s.  But when faced with an influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have no respect or tolerance of you or your culture, people possessing a passive and tolerant worldview are at a disadvantage. 

[Shiranu]

But when faced with an influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have no respect or tolerance of you or your culture, people possessing a passive and tolerant worldview are at a disadvantage. 

I'll take a passive and tolerant worldview over people with guns who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, even if it means they may occasionally be hurt by that position. Just like I rather live in a free society than a dictatorship, even if a dictatorship is more effective against negative outside influences.

[Jack89]

I'll take a passive and tolerant worldview over people with guns who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, even if it means they may occasionally be hurt by that position. Just like I rather live in a free society than a dictatorship, even if a dictatorship is more effective against negative outside influences.

Hyperbole aside, that's a valid position, but do you think it's right to force your position on others?  A free society wouldn't inhibit a person from protecting themselves or their loved ones. 

I spent several months working in a Kurdish refugee camp back in the early 90s, and while there were a lot of good people in the camp, a lot of bad things happened.  Even good people do bad things in situations like that.  Looking back, I can understand why Turkey prevented their entry.  From what I've been reading, a lot of the refugees coming into Europe aren't as nice as the ones I worked with.  There are apparently a lot of bad apples mixed in with the Syrian refugees. 

Austria and Germany have opened their doors to what, about a half a million refugees?  Even if the refugees had a strong desire to integrate into European society, which they clearly don't, there would be significant social and cultural issues to deal with.  I suspect the rise in violent crime in Sweden is just a taste of what Germany and Austria are likely to experience. 

[Baruch]

6000 refugees per day equals over 2 million refugees in one year ... and the ultimate number could go higher than that.