Gun Control

[PoD Gunner]

The pro-gun people, in Taijitu as well, claimed after the VT massacre that more guns was the answer, because if the students were armed they could have shot back.

Oh boy, I've missed that one. They've thought of that? I guess you are headed to a George Lukas-society. *the music-teacher pulls out laser gun and blasts one of the attackers all-over the class-walls. meanwhile, a small, skinny girl by the name of Leila-Jane reaches into her small purse and takes out a light-sabre, severing the feet of the second attacker. she asks him before cutting his throat, her cute voice like honey: do you believe in Chewbacca? the school is safe. yay. now back to jedi-training class.  *

[The Empire]

And about MG's, as they are bulky, heavy and a heavy recoil coupled with heavy belts of ammo, they are, if anything defencive weapons unless mounted on vehicles. That said, they still shouldn't be legal except maybe for collectors that are regularily checked-up and have a burglar-alarm that goes directly to the police. And that's a big maybe. SMG's on the other hand is purely offencive.

[Delfos]

Once a portuguese special marine forces told me, you do not kill people with MG pissing 300bullets per minute (or how many bullets it was), MGs are mainly to scare, the real action is done with rifles and smgs.

[The Empire]

And even there he was wrong, the main action is done with mortars and howitzers.
And yes, MG's main function today is to surpress, however, it was invented to counter infantry "going over the top" of their trenches.

[Delfos]

mortars? lol he's a marine, not mobile artillery, whats the use of those weapons when assaulting a ship? to destroy it? lol

[The Empire]

Ah, confusion of concepts 

In boarding operations at sea I guess SMG's, rifles and shotguns are the weapons of choise.

Swedish marines has very little to do with Ship-to-Ship assaults, they are used for littoral combat amongst the numerous tiny islands along our coasts. The navy and coastguard takes care of things out on open sea (not that we have very much open sea that is our own)

/OT

[Delfos]

well, comparing to the portuguese, we have alot of area to cover, and we have alot of ship-to-ship assaults, against illegal trespassing (bad term, i wouldnt call it immigration, thats another issue), illegal immigration, specially smuggling..i wouldnt doubt we have record of kilos of drugs and stuff like that from smugglers, they are so many coming to Portugal, that whenever we get them it's huge piles of drug. Plus they were for special operations, normaly ship-to-ship, they dont get on fighting with mortars and anything heavier than big MGs. anyway, all firearms should be changed to the new electric guns, those SWAT use. Mortality rates by firearms will drop 98%, people still have their gun but wouldnt kill anyone, plus it wouldnt be against human rights, you might not care for human rights as someone said, but we do.

[The Empire]

I do care for human rights, and It's also a part of the Swedish constitution that military units can't be used against civilians (even foreign criminals) under any circumstances, thus, the coast guard is a police unit as far as I know and they seldom use weapons at all, most things like smuggling is handled by the border customs, port authorities and police.

[Delfos]

well you would have alot of european cargo thought, i doubt you have much problem with smuggling, from where? Finland? Norwegian? We have South Africa and most or all smuggling that comes to europe, we'r the golden gates,as long with Spain...thats why we dont care for terrorists, they love to be here because we dont care, i bet theres alot of them living in Portugal.

[Romanar]

If they have you at gunpoint and you reach for your gun, they will shoot you. If you don't have a gun, they think they have an upperhand against you and get cocky. Also, if they want to kill you, they will.

It depends on the situation.  If a robber has his gun pointed at you, you'd be a total idiot if you pulled yours.  But, if some lunatic is on a shooting spree, you might be able to get to your gun while he's killing someone else, and you have nothing to lose by trying anyway (assuming you can't escape).

[Khablan]

If they have you at gunpoint and you reach for your gun, they will shoot you. If you don't have a gun, they think they have an upperhand against you and get cocky. Also, if they want to kill you, they will.

It depends on the situation.  If a robber has his gun pointed at you, you'd be a total idiot if you pulled yours.  But, if some lunatic is on a shooting spree, you might be able to get to your gun while he's killing someone else, and you have nothing to lose by trying anyway (assuming you can't escape).

That's the thing - there are different situations where a person's life is at risk.  If someone already has a gun pointed at you, then whether you have a gun in the closet is a moot point.  On the other hand, if someone has just broken into your house and you're in that room with that closet, you may be able to get to yours before he reaches you.  Or your children. 

imagine you walk in your gf's house, you see something pretty and grab it, suddendly the mother or father comes with shotgun and shoots you to death cuz she/he neva saw you in theire lives and think you'r a robber

That's a different situation from one where your life is in danger.  The laws in the US are very strict on this - you or your loved one's life must be in immediate danger when you shoot, or you'll be charged with murder.  You can't just shoot someone because they're robbing you or your home.  You have to prove that if you hadn't shot that gun, you or your loved one would be dead.  Those laws are meant to motivate people -not- to shoot indiscriminately.    If that was common in the US, the right to bear arms wouldn't be so popular here.

If we'r shot dead by a criminal because we didnt had a way to defend ourselves in time, whats my concern? The law will do something...plus, im dead.

My concern is that I don't want to die if I can prevent it.  And I most certainly do not want my child to die - if that happens, he might as well have killed me.  If either of those happens, and the law catches the criminal and he's put in jail, or even put to death, it won't bring back the dead.  I'd rather prevent us from dying if I can.  If there is some other way of preventing it, then I'll do that - I'd rather not shoot anyone unless absolutely necessary, either to injure or to kill.  Even if I didn't feel that way, the strict laws on the use of guns in self-defense would be enough to motivate me - I wouldn't want want to go to jail for it either.

But if killing him is the -only- way to stop it from happening, I wouldn't say to myself 'well either way someone's dead so I'm not going to shoot'.  Of course I'll shoot him.  I would much rather he be dead than my child.  Or myself.  We have as much right to live as the perpetrator does, and if killing him is the only way to stop him from killing us, you can bet I'll shoot him.  Absolutely.  I'm not going to put his right to live above ours.

The pro-gun people, in Taijitu as well, claimed after the VT massacre that more guns was the answer, because if the students were armed they could have shot back.

There will always be extremists in every subject.  Fanatics will jump at opportunities to try to convince people that they're right.  That certainly isn't the view of the average person. 

The majority of people in the US do not want to see college kids carrying handguns to class.  Or grownups walking around the streets with them, either.  Don't forget that there is also a strong anti-gun lobby as well, along with the gun rights lobby.  The average person falls somewhere in the middle - give us the right to bear arms, but within reason. 

[Talmann]

You can't just shoot someone because they're robbing you or your home.

Not in mood of arguing, but I'd like to add that this might be soon changed in Texas. Bill is: If someone breaks into your house and there is reasonable belief that he will kill/harm you or your loved ones (aka. pointing gun at your head, shooting the roof, etc), you get the right to shoot him yourself, and if you kill him, you won't be charged with murder as the kill was in self-defense.

[Khablan]

Talmann, as far as I'm concerned, that law should have been in effect all along.  If someone's threatening us with a gun, that's proof enough for me.  I'm not sure what would be more absolute proof of the imminent threat of death:  I should wait until he -does- shoot one of us?  Or until he announces, "Alright, hold still, I'm about to shoot you..."  Or maybe I should call a timeout and ask "Are you really and truly about to shoot one of us, or are you just taking that thing out of your pocket to give it some air?"  I know all those things sound silly, but really, how much proof is reasonable?  It's one thing to accuse me of murder if I didn't see a weapon in his hand, for example, or if he was running out the door and I shot him in the back.  But holding a gun and acting in a manner that implies he intends to use it should be enough proof.  I'm completely for any such incidents to be carefully and fully investigated, but the necessary proof must be reasonable too.

[The Empire]

According to Swedish self-defence laws, the situation Khablan mentions is already proof enough, You are allowed to use as much force as nessessary to defend yourself or to make a citizens arest on the spot, the difference is, there is hardly noone who owns a legal handgun, hunting rifles and hunting shotguns on the other hand is very, common and home-guard personell in many cases have their personal assault rifle or sub-machinegun in their house (vital parts stored separately from the weapons) In addition to that, most people don't know their legal rights in theese cases, I know it as it was part of the military training required for guard-duty at the royal palace. (Most regiments have one of their platoons sent to do one or two weeks from each conscription class) (conscript training is 7,5-15 months depending on station)
On the other hand, the evidence requirements in swedish courts is insanely high as you don't only have to proove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but also have to proove criminal intent. Even in rape cases.

[Khablan]

In addition to that, most people don't know their legal rights in theese cases

I think that's probably common everywhere.  The average person doesn't know the exact wording of the laws, and wouldn't understand all of the ramifications if they did.  Instead, we tend to have a general idea from what we've seen or heard in the media.  And of course, sometimes that can give an exaggerated impression, but it's difficult for us to know when that's the case. 

We've heard now and then here about cases where someone was charged after what sounded like a crystal-clear case of self-defense, or even sued for damages by the perpetrator because the victim fought back during the attack and injured their attacker. 

The truth is that the media only focuses on what it feels will best draw our interest, and so they go for the sensational.  The average person isn't in any field of law, and therefore doesn't really know whether that's the norm, or whether it's an extreme that seldom happens.  So we assume that if we ever do have to defend ourselves, we run a high risk of either having to pay damages or go to jail for it. 

In reality, the risk may be as high as we think, or maybe it's a bit lower, but we can only go on what we've seen and heard.  On the bright side, that certainly makes people less likely to shoot unless the situation absolutely warrants it.