Fight or Flight

[Nilsen]

"If you knowlingly seek out dangerous parts of cities at night in high heals and your purse flapping in the breeze you ask for trouble."  --Nilsen

You're saying crime is the victim's fault?


Yes its the victims fault for knowingly going to unsafe places, but no they are ofcourse not at fault for the crime itself.


---------------------------------------------


"I have no doubt that if i lived in a high-crime area in America or anywere else for that matter that i would arm myself, but since we dont need that you must see that there are differences." --Nilsen

You think it can't happen to you?

No "high-crime" areas cant happen to me... best answer i can give to that difuse question


---------------------------------------------------


Suffice it to say I disagree with your philosophy, Nilsen.  


As a general comment, I think the only "climate of fear" is among the anti-gun crowd--they fear guns and want them banned.  Such people make headway because many other people are complacent and all too willing to allow the banning of freedoms they don't personally use.  "Ban anything you like, so long as it isn't something I do".

J_A_B

I partly agree with you. Most humans want their enviroment to be as safe as it can be, and tend to want unsafe elements removed. If they feel that guns are such an element its natural to want it removed. If you can quote me on wanting guns to be banned then by all means find a place i have said it.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by straffo
If you start a post with my name you are addressing me , none else.
So why all of a sudden changing the subject from me to the other French citizen ?

And btw as I'm not parading the streets with my gun* I'm a potential target like all the people of my country.

A contrario to what Lazs pretend owning gun don't make you living safely you're sentence : "Most folks don't react quickly or properly to a threat. They freeze with shock until it's too late to be properly active."
fit 99% of the people and is the reason I'm against weapon at home.




*and it'll be pretty stupid as 99% of the time I've no ammo at home.

Straffo,

I don't believe you are that dense here. If all you want to do is have an argument go somewhere else. My responses to you are all based on the first one of yours I quoted about being safe because of the Police response to an alarm and the response to me you gave regarding weapons in the house. In neither one of those posts did you indicate, nor did I that we were speaking about you or your house. That's why I said whatever weapon you had was irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Now again. I was not referring to anyone elses comments other than yours so I was not commenting either way about Laz's statements. Contrary to what you may think I am not Laz, I do not speak for him nor does he speak for me. Sometines we agree on things, other times we are rather opposed.

I didn't say you were parading the streets with your gun did I.

I also did not state 99% of the people either. Don't try to twist what I said. If you can't refrain from doing that then there is no need to have a discussion.

[lazs2]

straffo....this is pretty funny...  the people in the country of your countries have guns and the burglars don't bother em because of that yet....   you claim that guns do no good anyway because only one percent of the people in the world can use em effectively.... and... you and nelson seem to think that not having guns keeps down crime and homicide

yet... out in the country there is no crime or homicide... it all happens in your big cities where everyone is unarmed.. this is some really laughable logic.

I am saying that you could have the same gun laws as arizona and there would be no more homicides than you have now...  I am guessing that there would even be somewhat less crime.

As for the "wild west"?   In the so called wild west where everyone was armed... crime and especialy murder were rare... rape or even talking badly to women was allmost unheard of.  

Young men would kill each other on occassion but the vast majority was mutal combat.

even so... at the height of the violence in tombstone and deadwood... the fireams death rate was a mere fraction of that of our large unarmed cities of today.

Guns do not create more homicides.  You gave up your rights like old women for no good reason.

lazs

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
straffo....this is pretty funny...  the people in the country of your countries have guns and the burglars don't bother em because of that yet....   you claim that guns do no good anyway because only one percent of the people in the world can use em effectively.... and... you and nelson seem to think that not having guns keeps down crime and homicide

Where did I wrote that ?

[doc1kelley]

Originally posted by Flit
What Grandma doin in Pakistan ? Shopping ?

Heck, she's shopping for RPG's and a few mortar launchers of course. roflol.

All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1

[lazs2]

ok straffo... then I guess we have no problem..  do you or don't you think that letting human beings own their own firearms to defend themselves or for recreation is a problem?  

" fool living in the US, in France even the people doing "hold-up" not often have real weapons.

And people living 30 min out of police usually are not targeted for 2 reasons :
- they are far from the burglar
- they are armed."

Now... you seem to be saying something different here..  You claim that in the city you are safe with alarms and a 5 minute or more wait for the police.... do you know how long 5 minutes are when trying to defend yourself?    then... you claim that people in the country are safe because they are armed.

Why is it good for people in the country to be armed and not those in the city?   Is there some magic time limit where a person can't be killed by?   You can't injure or kill someone in what?    5 minutes?

you aren't making any sense to me, so how bout you just tell me what you think gun laws should be and why.

I will start out... there should be none except for children and the mentaly incompetent and people now in prison.

lazs

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
ok straffo... then I guess we have no problem..  do you or don't you think that letting human beings own their own firearms to defend themselves or for recreation is a problem?  

It's not a problem for me I own and owned weapon (even if currently I've none at home as it's more a danger than a deterrent,where I live).

Now... you seem to be saying something different here..  You claim that in the city you are safe with alarms and a 5 minute or more wait for the police.... do you know how long 5 minutes are when trying to defend yourself?    then... you claim that people in the country are safe because they are armed.[/B]

As I said previously, it quite unprobable to see and armed burglar where I live,burglare will more likely run than stay to threaten you.

The exception being if they really want to keep you hostage but we are not in this case speaking of the average burglar but more of what I can describe as "professional" criminal and it happen perhaps 1 or 2 time per year.

Why is it good for people in the country to be armed and not those in the city?   [/B]

I don't say it's good ,I say in the country people own gun more than in town (they hunt you know)

Is there some magic time limit where a person can't be killed by?   You can't injure or kill someone in what?    5 minutes?[/B]

Killed by what ? a fist ?

you aren't making any sense to me, so how bout you just tell me what you think gun laws should be and why.[/B]

Law should depend of the context.
French law won't work in the USA. And I don't pretend you should use our.

US law won't work in France.Don't pretend we should use your.

I'm clearer ? (I've wrote this post in a hurry so it may content incoherences)

[lasersailor184]

Law should depend of the context.

Wrong, law should only be based on freedom.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Shuckins
There have been numerous references in threads on these boards referring to the British court's attitudes about the private citizen's use of force, specifically deadly force, in defence of hearth and home.

The law there states, in effect, that flight is the only viable option for a citizen threatened with violence by intruders in their homes.  

Originally posted by Trikky
Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service UK website here http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

I'm curious, were you planning to respond to this debunking of your original premise Shuckins?

[straffo]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wrong, law should only be based on freedom.

Sorry ?

Law and freedom in the same sentence ?

tss tss ... it simply don't work.

[lazs2]

straffo.. am I to understand that you are able to posses and even carry a firearm as you wish?   I am not familiar with french gun laws but is that the norm or is there some reason that you are so much better than your fellows that you are allowed this freedom and they are not?

I am also confused about the criminals not being armed.   I would make a bet that I could get a firearm within a few days of being in your country and not even speaking the language.   I would guess that criminals have no problem getting one either soooooo...

The penalties must be high for gun crime, in which case...  you would not need to have honest citizens give up theirs to get the same result or.... you have a different type of criminal than we do which.... in that case... there is no need for gun laws either.

lazs

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
straffo.. am I to understand that you are able to posses and even carry a firearm as you wish?  

Well actually I can't anymore as I didn't renew my licence some time ago (and that's why I've not weapon at home anymore).

You can own up to 7 weapon of "catégorie 1" handgun with caliber over 7,65 or semi-auto, full auto are not autorized but can be used (go figure...)

Carrying a non neutralized gun is forbiden , by neutralized I mean immediatly  ready to be used ,so you can't use it for your own protection.

I am not familiar with french gun laws but is that the norm or is there some reason that you are so much better than your fellows that you are allowed this freedom and they are not?[/B]

I'm not better , it's just they dont ask to be allowed there is nothing difficult you just have to be member of the french shooting federation follow basic training and sometime police will make an inquiry.

I am also confused about the criminals not being armed.   [/B]

They usualy don't need to be armed.

I would make a bet that I could get a firearm within a few days of being in your country and not even speaking the language. [/B]

Certainly ,it's not really difficult.

 I would guess that criminals have no problem getting one either soooooo...[/B]

Yep , but they also lack the minimal training to be dangerous and usually use the weapon to kill other criminals
Except for the brain dead, criminals know they'll likely not survive an encounter with police.

The penalties must be high for gun crime, in which case...  [/B]

They are high but I don't know how it compare to the US penalties

you would not need to have honest citizens give up theirs to get the same result or.... you have a different type of criminal than we do which.... in that case... there is no need for gun laws either.

lazs  [/B]

The current statusquo in france limit the number of weapon available* to the citizen and to the criminal plus as we don't have a real gun culture there is very few people in the population able to use a gun without killing themselves


*well officially ,I've heard there is still some WWII package hidden somewhere )

[lazs2]

as I thought...  you don't have a gun culture and your criminals at this point are not as homicidal as hours.   Even without guns... our criminals are more violent than yours.

That is just the way it is.   I like our society tho even with that minor problem... very vibrant and interesting and full of opportunity and choices.

I do heartily dissagree with you that the average citizen is not proficient enough with firearms to have them be of any use and especially that they are dangerous to themselves.   Our accident rate is way down... some of it has to do with better firearms and some with better education.

Just pointing the gun at a criminal works most of the time here tho.  

lazs

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Maverick
Police are not proactive except in a couple areas like traffic, thery are reactive which means after the fact.

Just as an aside.. this is 100% correct, but why?, in case it's not obvious; police depts directly benefit from the fines generated from proactive traffic enforcement.

The city makes $0.00 deploying the same officers to pro actively protect you.

One of my favorite things to do working uniform patrol was follow the burglary trends...it was usually 1 or 2 local a holes operating near their home in the middle of the day looking for opportunity.

From there I'd creep up and down the residential streets that were hit... real slow, all day (minus chasing the radio) back and forth. Pulling folks over junk boxes, stopping citizens of ill repute.

Sure enough I caught the dirt-bag junkies in the act and cleared 32 burglary cases, only to get chewed out for having a thin end of month stat sheet.

Next month I was assigned to work police hell; a traffic car and sat on the corner of Walk & Dont Walk churning out tickets. End of month, I had a sparkling stat sheet that made the officials who signed my paycheck very happy.