What weapons do you legally possess in real life? Do you wander armed?

[snejdarek]

And of course, to share mutual passion about guns By the way, could some of you clear the hype around that famous AR15 rifle? Why is it so expensive? I suppose it has to do with rifle being American-made, but wow it has a price… Similar rifles from different companies sell a lot cheaper and I don’t believe the quality to be lower, so any thoughts?

It depends on what you compare it to. I can compare PAR MK3 and CZ 858.

The Czech AR 15 (PAR MK3) costs €2.000, because it is a newly manufactured gun, with some new patented solutions, and the manufacturer prides itself upon delivering the best quality rifle. (We have 3 manufacturers of AR 15s in the Czech Republic.)

Meanwhile CZ 858 is made mostly from surplus spare parts of the Czechoslovak army. We used to have the largest army compared to population in the world (title now held by North Korea), so there are spare parts to make several hundred thousands of them, and the manufacturers buy them from army for peanuts. All they need to do is to manufacture different parts for semi-auto function instead of using the army’s full auto. So, that leads to €200 price.

The AR 15’s price is actually the same as for the CZ 805 BREN, the current Czech army main firearm. So in essence, it seems that the price is not that high.

[Dushin]

Well to avoid any confusion I’ll just put forward what I think.

Crime is essentially just a phenomena of society that will never be completely eradicated. To combat the problem you essentially have three means. A stable society that does not promote crime, an effective law enforcement system or giving civilians the means to combat crime themselves and act as a deterrent.

Now if you ask me why Switzerland is such a nice place I am inclined to believe the first two factors matter the most. The same goes for the Netherlands which almost completely lacks a gun owning population.

Honestly I believe the first means on lowering crime and murder is preferable because you tackle the problem at its root. When it comes to the second two means I think I prefer an effective law enforcement to an armed population. I’d rather walk the streets at night knowing I’m safe rather than knowing I can defend myself because I pack a gun.

On top of that I believe an effective law enforcement should always take precedence over an armed population, because if only the latter is present it will lead to vigilantism which is the anti-thesis of a function state able to uphold the rule of law.

I know some of you might disagree with me on a fundamental level because you believe spending tax money to achieve the first two deterrents (especially the first) is contrary to your political stance. But I believe you can only safely arm a population if the first two deterrents are fully realized, my example being Switzerland.

Call me dependent or too trusting of the government if you will, but i’d rather trust my seat belt + airbag to protect my life in a car crash than my own driving skill if you get what I mean by this.

[SirWarriant]

[quote=“Dushin, post:103, topic:22458”]
When it comes to the second two means I think I prefer an effective law enforcement to an armed population. I’d rather walk the streets at night knowing I’m safe rather than knowing I can defend myself because I pack a gun.

How are the police of any help when your face is getting smashed in to the side walk? You still have to survive the attack to call the police who then take minutes to get there and that could be minutes you simply don’t have. There cant be a cop on every corner this isn’t a perfect world.

On top of that I believe an effective law enforcement should always take precedence over an armed population, because if only the latter is present it will lead to vigilantism which is the anti-thesis of a function state able to uphold the rule of law.

There’s a huge difference between being a vigilante and protecting your life. Having both an armed population and a good police force is the answer.

Call me dependent or too trusting of the government if you will, but i’d rather trust my seat belt + airbag to protect my life in a car crash than my own driving skill if you get what I mean by this.

The government cannot constantly be protecting you. This is one of the many flaws of socialism it makes people rely way to much on their government and not enough on them selves. If someone broke into your house and murdered you and your family because you couldn’t defend your selves then there’s little the government will do other than try to catch the killer.

Most people don’t understand this until its too late.

[snejdarek]

On top of that I believe an effective law enforcement should always take precedence over an armed population, because if only the latter is present it will lead to vigilantism which is the anti-thesis of a function state able to uphold the rule of law.

Effective law enforcement anywhere on Earth means that they will come to scrape your body and then find, prosecute and imprison the person who killed you. By definition, law enforcement can’t be there when you need them most. Cases when the policemen are actually picking their noses just behind the corner when they are needed so they can come in time to help you are extremely rare.

Effective law enforcemenet may help reduce the statistical possibility that one will need them in the first place. Otherwise, when seconds count, police are minutes away.

[Dushin]

The government cannot constantly be protecting you. This is one of the many flaws of socialism it makes people rely way to much on their government and not enough on them selves. If someone broke into your house and murdered you and your family because you couldn’t defend your selves then there’s little the government will do other than try to catch the killer.

While that’s entirely true it’s still a matter of statistics. The chances of it happening are small, to small to be significant even.

If all my countrymen had an equal chance to die in violent crime than the chance for every person would be 0.00001%, the chance I win the national lottery is about twice that at 0.00002%. The chance I die in a traffic accident around 0.00004%.

However that is assuming all my countrymen are equal, the fact is that most of the killings are the result of criminals settling an affair or family dramas.

Effective law enforcement anywhere on Earth means that they will come to scrape your body and then find, prosecute and imprison the person who killed you. By definition, law enforcement can’t be there when you need them most.

I take it you live in a country where police are only outside when a body is found? They never do any preventive work?

[snejdarek]

I take it you live in a country where police are only outside when a body is found? They never do any preventive work?

The criminal chooses the victim, time and place. Do criminals in your country often choose times and places where they know/expect police presence?

[Jlyga_u_onacHa]

Mate, I completely understand your position. Everyone has the right of personal opinion and although I may agree with some of your views, I can not agree with all. Respect to you nonetheless because you can state an argument and defend it with logical reasons.

I have gun/self-defense bias because I prefer to live in a silent, non-represive state which doesn’t spy or hassle its citizen just to “fight crime”. I am keen on relying on myself for my own personal protection rather than relying on someone else, be it government or police. We people should have our full civil rights, including gun ownership/usage. I find it ridiculous that someone would voluntarily surrender his “divine” right to bear arms to any third party. I don’t like this and I won’t like it ever. Maybe I spent too much time reading Machiavelli and Locke and their concepts about the state have influenced my mind to the point I became very demanding about my personal rights.

And one practical thing - although ancient and great once, nowadays my country is very corrupt. Based on your 3 factors for law keeping, I can tell you that N:1 and N:2 won’t work for us, at least in short term.
Why N:1 won’t work: we suffered near 5 centuries Ottoman rule, which is the most destructive thing that can happen to a country. Our society never healed completely, so it would always try to cheat and break the law in a typical Oriental manner. Although we Bulgarians mostly are proud and honest people, those 500 years savage reign have taken its toe on us. As one great mind once said: “Democracy only works in a society where everyone WANTS to keep the law by conscious, not break it”. Our society is far from that, so N:1 is not working here.
N:2 is not helping either. The reasons are many - corrupt politicians, neglected police forces, no army, stupid laws, rotten jurisdiction… Our law enforcement also has very limited direct power and possibilities, even if there are honest officers who wish to do their duty, they simply are put down by the system. What if I tell you that a police officer here can’t legally shoot a bandit? They try to stop an attacker with other means, because a kill most definitely ends a policeman’s career, if not put him in jail. So hardcore bandits have no fear from the police - they will end up with a good beating at most and after some time will continue to commit crimes.
N:3 will work right now right away if we elect new government who actually cares about the people who put it in charge. After the laws are changed, some bandits will be immediately killed or severely wounded by armed citizens who are protecting their lifes/property. This would act as a deterrent for the other criminals would be thinking twice before attempting any more crimes.

Is the society problem gone with that? Not entirelly. But it will be a solid foundation from which we could improve dramatically.

[Dushin]

The criminal chooses the victim, time and place. Do criminals in your country often choose times and places where they know/expect police presence?

Law enforcement tries to prevent crime and punishment leads to a general prevention. Then there is the fact that criminals quite often don’t choose the time and place, many murders taking place inside a family or circle of acquaintances where they act on emotional impulses. That lone serial killer sneaking in your house at night to murder your family might have a basis in reality but is mostly a fairy tale.

Anyways my point of view is that arming the civilian population is not an all round cure for a defunct state with high crime. I am not saying gun ownership always promotes crime either. It has little influence compared to the other two. Which essentially brings me to this thing I stated earlier: If you want folks to exercise their right to bear arms safely it’s better to have a low crime rate to begin with than try to bring down a high crime rate by giving everyone guns.

I have gun/self-defense bias because I prefer to live in a silent, non-represive state which doesn’t spy or hassle its citizen just to “fight crime”.

Don’t worry the NSA will spy on you wherever you live

I am keen on relying on myself for my own personal protection rather than relying on someone else, be it government or police. We people should have our full civil rights, including gun ownership/usage. I find it ridiculous that someone would voluntarily surrender his “divine” right to bear arms to any third party. I don’t like this and I won’t like it ever. Maybe I spent too much time reading Machiavelli and Locke and their concepts about the state have influenced my mind to the point I became very demanding about my personal rights.

Well then this is where our opinions differ. I personally feel quite safe walking the streets at night knowing the chance of someone trying to rob me is small, rather than knowing I can protect myself with a gun (which could also lead to him or her having a gun).

I firmly believe in individualism and individual rights as put forward by John Stuart Mill, however I don’t see the right to bear arms as one of those. Not that I couldn’t get a gun through legal means, it’s just very closely supervised. A supervision that would probably be seen as an infringement of a right by many folks here. In the end me owning a gun is probably going to cause more harm by scaring everyone in the street than it will do good by protecting me or anyone in the street.

As for the other issues regarding Bulgaria: Your economic position might improve by your joining of the EU. Truth is that many former countries of the Communist Bloc had some issues following the fall of the Soviet Republic. Nowadays those countries show great progress (most notable Eastern Germany and Poland). But only time will tell I suppose.

[snejdarek]

Law enforcement tries to prevent crime and punishment leads to a general prevention.

That is of no help in the moment when you are on the ground having your teeth kicked in.

Then there is the fact that criminals quite often don’t choose the time and place, many murders taking place inside a family or circle of acquaintances where they act on emotional impulses.

That is beyond the point of discussion here. The debate in this topic as started by the OP is about the means people have on them to defend themselves against crime, mostly while out in the open. Not about the likelihood of family quarrel ending in homicide.

Moreover, you need to understand that advancements in modern medicine lead to the fact that people survive things that would be impossible just a decade ago. Surviving is surely better than dying (mostly, not always), but I personally prefer the chance of effectively defending myself over months in hospital and years of psycho therapy, notwithstanding how low the statistical probability is. Because once it happens to you, statistics don’t mean shit.

That lone serial killer sneaking in your house at night to murder your family might have a basis in reality but is mostly a fairy tale.

Fairy tale? There may not be that many serial killers, however when someone comes to your house to get your TV and finds you there, the things can go any possible direction. And from the little I know, most criminals prefer making sure their victim will not be able to identify them.

Very rarely you hear someone saying at court “I went there to slit his throat and get his money.” It is always “I just wanted this and that and then it all somehow went wrong.” - both in cases of self-defense of the victim, or when no defense is present (quite often suffocation after being bound, etc.).

Anyways my point of view is that arming the civilian population is not an all round cure for a defunct state with high crime.

When you live in high crime area, you don’t care about societal cures. Your priority is making yourself and your loved ones safe.

Please go tell any of the law abiding people in Mexico that they arming them would be a bad idea.

I personally feel quite safe walking the streets at night knowing the chance of someone trying to rob me is small, rather than knowing I can protect myself with a gun (which could also lead to him or her having a gun).

The “if I have a gun then the bad guy can get hold of it” is the biggest bullshit of them all. If he can get a hold of your gun, then it means you are in situation in which you are pretty much done for (serious injury/death) notwithstanding whether you are armed or not. But up until that point, the gun may be the only thing stopping the threat.

Not that I couldn’t get a gun through legal means, it’s just very closely supervised.

As far as I know, in Netherlands, you cannot own gun for self-defense. You can’t carry a concealed firearm for self-defense.

Saying that you can have a gun for sport shooting, which must be otherwise all the time locked in a safe/locked in a gunbox for transport to the range, has no bearing on the debate on weapons owned and carried for self defense.

So no, you couldn’t get a gun in the Netherelands. You might be able get an expensive toy in a form of firearm which you would be barred by law from using for its primary purpose.

I personally feel quite safe walking the streets at night

In general:

Violent Dutch gang-war spreads across Europe

And after reading about Omar El Hussein and many related articles on gang culture in Dutch cities… well, so much about safe Netherlands.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/copenhagen-shooting-suspect-omar-el-hussein-a-past-full-of-contradictions (google others yourself)

Do I posses weapons?

No.

I AM the weapon. Scientists still don’t know how or why but suspect aliens have something to do with it.

Enough said.

[Dushin]

That is of no help in the moment when you are on the ground having your teeth kicked in.

I’m more of a vanilla guy really. Leave those whips and chains in the cupboard.

The debate in this topic as started by the OP is about the means people have on them to defend themselves against crime, mostly while out in the open.

Somewhere halfway a person made the bold statement that gun ownership leads to lower amount of crime which is what we have been discussing for the past ten or so posts. But I believe the discussion ended, at least according to me and @Jlyga_u_onacHa

The “if I have a gun then the bad guy can get hold of it” is the biggest bullshit of them all. If he can get a hold of your gun, then it means you are in situation in which you are pretty much done for (serious injury/death) notwithstanding whether you are armed or not. But up until that point, the gun may be the only thing stopping the threat.

No, I didn’t mean it that way. I meant that if I can go to the supermarket to buy a gun then the guy with criminal intent can too. Right now the cost of a handgun and the jail time associated with it makes gun ownership for all but high volume drug trades, assassinations and other organized crime to risky.

As far as I know, in Netherlands, you cannot own gun for self-defense. You can’t carry a concealed firearm for self-defense.

Saying that you can have a gun for sport shooting, which must be otherwise all the time locked in a safe/locked in a gunbox for transport to the range, has no bearing on the debate on weapons owned and carried for self defense.

So no, you couldn’t get a gun in the Netherelands. You might be able get an expensive toy in a form of firearm which you would be barred by law from using for its primary purpose.

That’s not really true.

Proportional self defense with available means is not punishable, even if you shoot someone with an illegal firearm you’d still get acquitted on account of manslaughter. You might face a fine or jail time for illegal weapon possession though.

You can get a handgun for sport shooting purposes at home and a hunting rifle if you have a hunting permit.

As for those articles you linked, that only started a year ago and is all related to a wave of distrust in the underworld. Sadly they had a few identity mess ups but other than that it’s cherry picking à la supreme.

PS, Amsterdam is not the only city in the Netherlands.

[TheDivineInfidel]

regarding the police not being able to help until you call them is slightly untrue especially in large cities .
london for example has a camera on near enough every corner which are 24/7 watched by someone who will then guide police in , they have worked wonders here .

funny story i was told today at work today regarding these camera .
one of the lads i work with is a bit of a druggy and over the weekend they were out in city and went into a phone booth to snort some coke .
he ended up getting arrested because the moment they all went into a phone booth the officer manning the camera picked up on it and guided in police and he then spent a night in a police cell lovely place to cue a hang over .

so generally the center of london you will have help on the way before the first physical attack is made .
their is actually a documentary in the UK where they follow these staff and the police as they deal with drunk people on a friday night and the camera crews quite often would watch over a lone woman or someone looking vulnerable as far as they can to make sure they’re safe .

so it can be done , but i imagine if they implemented such a system in the US all the conspiracy theorists would go mental

[SirWarriant]

regarding the police not being able to help until you call them is slightly untrue especially in large cities . london for example has a camera on near enough every corner which are 24/7 watched by someone who will then guide police in , they have worked wonders here .

So police can instantly get to you? Without a moments hesitation? It still takes minutes for the fastest police response time. You could easily be dead in 30 seconds if you’re attacked.

so it can be done , but i imagine if they implemented such a system in the US all the conspiracy theorists would go mental

Yeah i’m so mental for not wanting a police state where you are constantly surveyed like a criminal.

“Any society, that gives up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will lose both”- Benjamin Franklin

[TheDivineInfidel]

So police can instantly get to you? Without a moments hesitation? It still takes minutes for the fastest police response time. You could easily be dead in 30 seconds if you’re attacked.

in about a minute in central london would be a reasonable guess .

they send the police before you’re actually attacked , if there is a situation where an indiuals seems to being followed then a officer is sent to check over the situation . etc . ultimately it comes down to the camera controllers judgement of a situation and any potential dangers .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:113, topic:22458”]
Yeah i’m so mental for not wanting a police state where you are constantly surveyed like a criminal.

“Any society, that gives up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will lose both”- Benjamin Franklin
[/quote] my point exactly . it doesnt effect our rights at all it helps ensure our safety . alot more . not 100% but a fair deal better .

[SirWarriant]

in about a minute in central london would be a reasonable guess .

Dead. 1 minute is all someone needs to snuff out your life.

they send the police before you’re actually attacked , if there is a situation where an indiuals seems to being followed then a officer is sent to check over the situation . etc . ultimately it comes down to the camera controllers judgement of a situation and any potential dangers .

Oh really so on a busy street they can tell if someone is following you lol. Oh and by the way there is a city in the U.S that has a system like London’s. Welcome to Chicago Illinois! One of Americas most dangerous cities.

my point exactly . it doesnt effect our rights at all it helps ensure our safety . alot more . not 100% but a fair deal better .

Yes it does. You constantly being watched by someone. Thats no different than what the NSA does. And from what you just told me they will arrest you for walking behind someone on a public street.

The fact that people are getting more and more comfortable with constantly being under surveillance is concerning.
Perhaps you’ve read 1984? It takes place in your home town London.

Nineteen Eighty-Four

Sadly his work of Fiction is becoming a reality.

[TheDivineInfidel]

Oh really so on a busy street they can tell if someone is following you lol. Oh and by the way there is a city in the U.S that has a system like London’s. Welcome to Chicago Illinois! One of Americas most dangerous cities.

no one is going to murder you in broad day light with thousands of people about are they . 99% of attacks happen at night when you’re alone walking home . as stated before the attacker chooses the time and place and they are not going to choose 1 oclock in the afternoon on oxford street .

its a system that has and is working very well here . they’re in most cases able to get an officer to you before harm is brought against you .

not even a gun is 100% going to stop you being killed on the streets . lets not be silly here . nothing is 100% .
but it works for us .
alot of what they do is spotting two gangs of people shouting at eachother and looking as if its going to end in a fight or worse , and an officer is sent to calm it down

[TheDivineInfidel]

And from what you just told me they will arrest you for walking behind someone on a public street.

no see this is classic american conspiracy theorist . it comes down to when someone looks odd . spotting an odd situation . im sure you have walked down a street at night and had an odd feeling about someone behind you yes ? normally its nothing . for me its always been nothing but occasionally it is someone so its nice to have an extra person looking out for you

[SirWarriant]

no one is going to murder you in broad day light with thousands of people about are they . 99% of attacks happen at night when you’re alone walking home . as stated before the attacker chooses the time and place and they are not going to choose 1 oclock in the afternoon on oxford street .

Muslims will. Also how do they tell if the person is out to get you? What if they’re just walking home as well?

alot of what they do is spotting two gangs of people shouting at eachother and looking as if its going to end in a fight or worse , and an officer is sent to calm it down

Now that i believe but you wont ever convince me they send police after someone who they think might be following you.

not even a gun is 100% going to stop you being killed on the streets . lets not be silly here . nothing is 100% .

No but it certainly gives you a better chance. Say if someone rushed you with a knife. If you’re unarmed how ever the camera man has to watch as the murderer cuts your throat and then runs off into the night.
A person will also be less likely to attack you if they think you’re carrying a gun.

no see this is classic american conspiracy theorist

You made it seem like they will just arrest someone they think is following someone.

it comes down to when someone looks odd . spotting an odd situation . im sure you have walked down a street at night and had an odd feeling about someone behind you yes ? normally its nothing . for me its always been nothing but occasionally it is someone so its nice to have an extra person looking out for you

And what if a person suddenly jumped you? You have nothing but your fists. They call the police and they get there to find you bleeding all over the pavement. 1 minute is not enough time in a situation like that.

[SirWarriant]

“The inhabitants of Oceania, particularly the Outer Party members, have no real privacy. Many of them live in apartments equipped with two-way telescreens, so that they may be watched or listened to at any time. Similar telescreens are found at workstations and in public places, along with hidden microphones. Written correspondence is routinely opened and read by the government before it is delivered. The Thought Police employ undercover agents, who pose as normal citizens and report any person with subversive tendencies. Children are encouraged to report suspicious persons to the government, and some even denounce their parents. Surveillance controls the citizenry and the smallest sign of rebellion, even something so small as a facial expression, can result in immediate arrest and imprisonment. Thus, citizens (and particularly party members) are compelled to obedience.”

A theme of 1984 i doubt you would care if the put cameras in your house. Its all for the “safety” of the public right? You already have surveillance all over your streets whats next?

[TheDivineInfidel]

Also how do they tell if the person is out to get you? What if they’re just walking home as well?

then thats fine , generally its easy to tell a gang out to do harm and some bloke walking home

[Dushin]

You already have surveillance all over your streets whats next?

Hmm I prefer Brave New World and to be honest it’s probably closer to what we have than 1984.

(let the Orgy-Porgy’s come)