Why do some authors refuse to embrace firearms and their use in self defense? This is insane! When a bad guy is trying to kill you you need to do whatever it takes to stop him and if you have a firearm you should use it to kill him first. This isn't evil. It's common sense.
Owning/having access to firearms is an American thing.
It is usually much harder in other countries to get permits to even have a firearm. So they might not be as easy to have for self defense.
I find with American authors, having their MCs blow the heads off of bad guys is more common than authors from other countries where they use different methods.
authors from other countries where they use different methods.
Luc Besson doesn't have a problem blowing bad guys' heads off. I guess he could use his native guillotine. Or maybe he just writes for an American audience.
To me, the difference would be a 'fairly average' MC and Luc Besson's not-at-all-average MCs. Leon not using a gun would be absurd. But the average French homeowner might, or might not, have a gun at hand for self-defense purposes. Someone writing a story set in France and involving a home invasion would need to account for that.
Many stores have the good confront and defeat one bad guy. The bad guy drops his weapon and the good guy goes to confront other bad guys while unarmed because they refuse to pickup the weapon. Or a bad guy shoots a good guy and another good guy dumps snow on him instead of squashing the bad guy with a tractor. Then a women takes a pistol from a bad guy and shoots a bad guy, but she apologized for using a gun and has to face a grand jury. Apparently, the author thinks that using a firearm in self defense is evil! Which I find insane.
The story that I'm thinking about is Beyond the Mirror. Except for the issues of self defense, it is a great story.
...if you have a firearm you should use it to kill him first.
I'm trying to remember the last story I read where (a) a person has a gun, (b) they are attacked and (c) they don't use the gun (or at least attempt to do so.) Not coming up with any off the top of my head. I occasionally see one where the gun owner attempts to deescalate, but those are in confrontations, not attacks.
I'm trying to remember the last story I read where (a) a person has a gun, (b) they are attacked and (c) they don't use the gun (or at least attempt to do so.)
A couple of times in my series A Well-Lived Life, but the MC is a 6th Dan ShΕtΕkan instructor.
That sounds amusingly like a 'Chekhov's Gun' situation. If there is a gun, one must fire it, no? Certainly, if there is a gun, and a situation where the use of a gun is reasonable, it 'must' be used.
If all you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails.
Sometimes authors go to extreme lengths, oyster50 had a scene where his female MC (Cindy) was at home with her husband when a baddie with a grudge, backup and automatic rifles came calling. Given that "home" was a trailer, that was not a good situation. Her husband also had automatic weapons and a firefight ensued where the bad guys died and at least one of the good guys suffered a minor wound. WTF? The bad guys even knew where the good guys were but did not take them down through the walls.
RLFJ's Grim Reaper has a more realistic take on that. MC engages the bad guys from a blind outside his house and still gets injured. The house is badly damaged and requires a partial rebuild.
If people are attempting to murder you then the only sane thing to do is kill them first and use the most effective method available.
I wish that I could carry a concealed weapon but California violates the second amendment and refuses to let people bear arms so I can't. I carry a pepper blaster and a knife for self defens3 instead.
I talked to a n officer outside a hospital who asked why I had weapons. I said for self defense and he said that's why the police were there. However, if I was in a confrontation with someone the police wouldn't be able to save me.
It is better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.
he said that's why the police were there.
I would have asked him why celebrities have bodyguards if police are always there.
I said for self defense
First rule of self-defence club, is not putting yourself in danger in the first place...
America has this mad obsession with owning guns and having the right to possess and carry them. A large part of the remaining world gets on fine without it.
They/you have lots of reasons as to why you should do so, many of them resulting from the fact that you do so (carry).
I've have seen thousands of fights over the years and almost all of them could have simply have been avoided if one party had just walked away. Granted the majority of them were alcohol-fueled, and brain cells go on holiday when that happens.
Guns are not a solution; they are a problem and American males have it ingrained in their minds that they need a gun to be a man.
"I need a gun because someone else might have one" Is stupidity in print. An endlessly turning circle of violence.
It is better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.
it's even better not to put yourself in the position where that even becomes a choice.
Yes, I can hear people already typing "What if I am sat at home and my house is invaded?" or "I am sat in the park minding my own business when a stereotypical black man points a gun at me and demands my sherbert dip..." That is an endless cycle of violence that fuels school shootings. Ban guns, ban the possession and carrying of them and make doing so an automatic death penalty. Once people start being executed for carrying, people will pretty damn quickly stop carrying and the gun violence will drop off a proverbial cliff.
Banning guns will not stop mass murder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3roH54bDAk&t=2s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
That truck attack in Nice, France killed more people than the worst mass shooting in the US.
Disarming peaceful people makes them defenseless.
Disarming violent people does not make them harmless.
You are correct, it doesn't. But people are more likely to gun down other people than they are to drive into them. Gun ownership makes it easier, more likely to happen.
How many kids have died en-masse by a lone driver in the USA compared to being shot? I would say it's easier to get a car for a child than it is a gun, but they don't take a car and drive into school playgrounds, but kids do take guns into schools...
That truck attack in Nice, France killed more people than the worst mass shooting in the US.
Killed yes. The Islamic State terrorist killed 86, wounded 458 for a total of 544 casualties. In a truck.
Stephen Paddock, a USA born national, killed 58, wounded 546 for a total of 604 casualties. With firearms.
Yes, you are correct with kills, but not with injuries.
Googling 'Which country has the most Mass shootings' brings up
"Researchers have found that despite making up less than 5% of the global population, the U.S. accounts for approximately 31% of global public mass shootings" And, " a study in the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice covering a 22-year span showed that the U.S. had 101 such attacks, compared to Franceβthe country with the next highest recorded numberβwhich had eight."
Eight.
Those are stats no-one should be proud of, and America should be asking itself, "Why? What is it we do, or have, that everyone else doesn't?"
Could it be that glorious right to bear arms that Americans all harp on about?
Googling 'Which country has the most Mass shootings' brings up
I would call a focus of mass "shootings" irrelevant and deceptive.
Being shot doesn't make you deader than being stabbed, run over with a vehicle or blown up with a bomb.
Yes, the US has a violence problem. No, guns are not the cause and getting rid of guns will not fix the problem.
And, since you focused on "school shootings" earlier, the worst mass casualty school attack in US history was not a mass shooting. It was a bombing, in 1927.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
And, since you focused on "school shootings" earlier, the worst mass casualty school attack in US history was not a mass shooting. It was a bombing, in 1927.
'Only' by six people (Virginia Tech 2007- 32 killed) and lets be honest here, it most likely stands for the simple reason that it's a lot harder to get explosives than it probably was in his day (1926). The article states that 'he just walked into a shop and bought the explosives'.
You are obviously going to be more knowledgeable about this than me, but can you just walk into a shop in America and buy explosives and dynamite like you do with guns?
You are obviously going to be more knowledgeable about this than me, but can you just walk into a shop in America and buy explosives and dynamite like you do with guns?
You can't "just walk into a shop" and buy guns either. It requires a back ground check and other paperwork.
As to explosives, while sale of commercially made explosives are restricted, there are a number of explosives for which the ingredients to make them can not be effectively restricted. The problem is that it's not half as difficult as most people think to cook up explosives in your kitchen.
ANFO=Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil. Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers are everywhere. Farms will have them by the ton. Fuel Oil (diesel) is everywhere.
TATP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide
TATP is made from acetone and hydrogen peroxide
These aren't the only ones. Look up the Anarchist's Cookbook sometime.
I am well aware how to make bombs, I was making them as kid long before the internet even existed, using products bought from the local Boots (It's a chemist chain in the UK) and fertiliser from garden centres (before the IRA made it 'popular' necessitating inhibitors to be added to Potasium nitrate), and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can make charcoal. I even made my fuses out of toilet paper....LOL
can you just walk into a shop in America and buy explosives and dynamite like you do with guns?
YES! As DS mentions, the components for ANFO explosives are even easier to buy than guns. You can go into any farm supply store and buy Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer by the ton, and Diesel is also easily bought. I used to buy 500 - 700 gallons every week, 200 - 250 gallons at a time.
It's not that easy to do in the UK. In the UK we have a little group called the IRA (which America used to fund until 9/11. It wasn't so popular to fund terrorism after that date and the IRA went broke, so in effect, your loss was actually our gain, thanks for that) and they and associated groups, PIRA, CIRA, INLA etc etc and their opposite numbers, UVF, UDA, etc etc used to make fertiliser bombs to such an extent, that inhibiters were added to basically anything that could be made to go 'bang'. Which spoiled my fun in later childhood years. Though looking back, it actually did me a favour in that I still have all my fingers. And my pulse.
I did eventually choose a career path that allowed me to play with big boys booms! But to be honest, the novelty wore off pretty quickly, though it did teach me how to make an interesting array of devices (well, in order to defuse a thing, you must know how to make the thing).
In the UK we have a little group called the IRA (which America used to fund until 9/11. It wasn't so popular to fund terrorism after that date and the IRA went broke
That's an interesting interpretation, and not one I've seen before. The Troubles pretty much ended with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, although at least one "splinter group" subsequently attempted to restart them. Bill Clinton played a major role in the 1998 agreement.
As to how they started, the NI branch of the BBC was Orange through and through back then. Jim Callaghan sent the troops in to protect the Catholics but that did not last very long, and their inability (along with the old IRA) to prevent ethnic cleansing in Belfast led to the creation of the Provos. Internment without trial followed, and then Bloody Sunday. This site gives an overview of the disaster along with a link covering the background, the Provos reacted by taking the fight to mainland England.
Something I only discovered a year or so ago was that several ex US-Army explosives experts came over and donated their expertise to "the cause", the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton would not have been possible without them.
The Troubles pretty much ended with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998
Ironically, a recent poll showed a majority in the Irish Republic want restoration of a hard border. Too many illegals are crossing from the UK mainland then going on to claim 'asylum' in the Irish Republic.
But then the UK has always taken the Good Friday Agreement more seriously than Ireland and the EU.
AJ
But then the UK has always taken the Good Friday Agreement more seriously than Ireland and the EU.
That may apply to the EU in general, but definitely not to Ireland. That was the reason Brexit negotiations with the EU were so difficult when it came to that border - Ireland was determined to have the Good Friday agreement stand up.
As to the results of some poll, what the chances that a similar poll in a Protestant area in the North would show a similar majority for similar reasons - illegals crossing from the Irish Republic?
Not to long ago you could go into a hardware store and by dynamite and everything you need to set it off. No permits required. Farmers used it to clear land.
You are obviously going to be more knowledgeable about this than me, but can you just walk into a shop in America and buy explosives and dynamite like you do with guns?
You can't just walk into a store and buy guns like you do explosives. Not even in the US.
You can walk into a store and buy explosives with no idea or questions about why you're buying them, guns on the other hand require an ID and a waiting period, with a whole bunch of questions and often some certifications before you can take a gun.
You also could go to a store and pick up a bunch of explosives at the store - they might not be labeled as such but they mostly wouldn't have been in 1927 either, and in 1927 you couldn't google things.
The reason mass-casualty attacks with explosives are relatively rare even in insurrections is that taking a bunch of explosives and turning them into a bomb, by which I mean a device that will explode when you want it to and not before is a difficult and highly skilled job, one which has a steep, dare I say explosive learning curve.
taking a bunch of explosives and turning them into a bomb, by which I mean a device that will explode when you want it to and not before is a difficult and highly skilled job, one which has a steep, dare I say explosive learning curve.
It's not, it really isn't.
Some of the most effective explosive devices utilised by Irish paramilitaries were basically mousetraps and kitchen timers. Eventually, they moved on to mobile phones (when they became cheap and mass-produced), where the covers were removed and the detonator system wired up to the speaker cable. The only technical requirement was the ability to wield a screwdriver.
Some of the most effective explosive devices utilised by Irish paramilitaries were basically mousetraps and kitchen timers.
You're talking about timers, I'm talking about about explosives. If you have access to military or commercially made explosives, or you got the training and equipment needed to properly prepare the explosive and detonator, then sure setting up a bomb becomes relatively easy.
Those two are generally rather big ifs, although the Irish troubles were apparently a bit of an exception in that they had access to both.
You're talking about timers, I'm talking about explosives
No, you are not. You said;
turning them into a bomb, by which I mean a device that will explode when you want it to and not before is a difficult and highly skilled job
Having an explosive detonating when you want, either requires command detonation, or a timer. You didn't specify command det, so you were talking about timers.
Your implication that making actual explosives is difficult is also wrong. All a potential bomb maker needs is basic reading comprehension. And three items (75% potassium nitrate, 15% charcoal, and 10% sulphur) two of which can be easily bought on UK high streets. The third used to be easily bought in garden centres until, as previously mentioned, Irish individuals started taking the piss. As a result, inhibitors are now added by law. Given the advent of the internet, there are now easy-to-follow instructions on how to remove those inhibitors just a few mouse clicks away. It doesn't require specialist knowledge or even special equipment and is no more difficult than following a cooking recipe.
If you have the time and the patience, you can make a fatal explosive device out of the heads of matchsticks, but really, for speed and simplicity, all you need is a length of pipe sealed at one end, a screw cap on the other, and the contents of some shop bought fireworks.
Having an explosive detonating when you want, either requires command detonation, or a timer. You didn't specify command det, so you were talking about timers.
I didn't specify the method of detonation because that's not the point. I was talking about the explosives.
Basic lesson in chemistry - just because you have a material which can explode destructively does not mean it will go off when you want it to, conversly it does not mean it will stay stable when you want it to.
The timers are irrelevent and as you noted quite easy, it's ensuring that the stuff doesn't blow up on its own, and does blow up when your timer/command goes off that is difficult.
although the Irish troubles were apparently a bit of an exception in that they had access to both
Not really, as I previously said, they made their own black powder out of readily available (at the time) ingredients and filled emptied 47kg propane gas canisters with it to make highly effective mortars.
Yes, they had access to PE, but it was costly and harder to acquire, so it was used sparingly and in situations were fertiliser explosive use was not ideal.
Not really, as I previously said, they made their own black powder out of readily available (at the time) ingredients and filled emptied 47kg propane gas canisters with it to make highly effective mortars.
As noted they were fairly unusual in the number and level of trained demolitions experts they had access to.
As for the claim they made black powder - I find that highly unlikely. The ingrediants for black powder are actually harder to acquire than those for more effective explosives and it's really not very useful as an explosive.
As noted they were fairly unusual in the number and level of trained demolitions experts they had access to.
The majority were self-taught.
As for the claim they made black powder - I find that highly unlikely. The ingrediants for black powder are actually harder to acquire than those for more effective explosives and it's really not very useful as an explosive.
You obviously are not aware of the situation, as you would never have written that garbage. I literally gave you the ingredients for black powder and where they could be purchased legally, and yet you claim their acquisition was harder to facilitate than military explosives? Yeah, right, I have a bridge to sell you...
I literally gave you the ingredients for black powder and where they could be purchased legally, and yet you claim their acquisition was harder to facilitate than military explosives?
I never claimed that, I'm not sure what you're reading but it's obviously not what I'm writing.
I never claimed that, I'm not sure what you're reading but it's obviously not what I'm writing.
Errrr, you literally did with;
As for the claim they made black powder - I find that highly unlikely. The ingrediants for black powder are actually harder to acquire than those for more effective explosives and it's really not very useful as an explosive
I don't know what reality you think you are in, but it's not this one.
Are you that ignorant that you think "more effective explosives than black powder" and "military explosives" are synonyms?
You even have in this thread people talking about some of the explosives the IRA actually used.
Are you that ignorant that you think "more effective explosives than black powder" and "military explosives" are synonyms?
No, that was all you failing at reading comprehension.
You even have in this thread people talking about some of the explosives the IRA actually used.
Yes, that was me. Again, see my previous comment about reading comprehension.
The ingrediants for black powder are actually harder to acquire than those for more effective explosives and it's really not very useful as an explosive.
Put the following: "Most common explosive in Northern Ireland " Into Google search and improve your knowledge base.
Put the following: "Most common explosive in Northern Ireland " Into Google search and improve your knowledge base.
You really should take your own advice.
You really should take your own advice.
Oh? If you don't think that's the case, what DO YOU think is (was) the most common explosive material used?
Oh? If you don't think that's the case, what DO YOU think is (was) the most common explosive material used?
If I go by the top entries on the google search you suggested? Ammonium Nitrate. I haven't looked into it enough to tell if that's true or not, but it's at least possible, unlike black powder.
I haven't looked into it enough to tell if that's true or not
That is plainly obvious.
Ammonium and potassium nitrates are very similar and used for similar (legal) reasons. Their illegal use is also the same and, as such, both come under the same legal scrutiny and restrictions.
If used in the same way (ie formula), ammonium nitrate has a slower burn rate, resulting in less 'bang'. However, Ammonium nitrate is significantly cheaper to buy than potassium nitrate. Currently, AN is around Β£473 per ton whereas PN is around Β£1200 per ton. Hence why AN is used more for IED's than PN. Money, it always comes down to money.
For your information, because you are obviously in desperate need of it, Saltpetre (gunpowder) is PN, charcoal (condensed carbon), and sulphur. ANFO, is AN mixed in with diesel. And guess what makes up diesel, yes, that's right you in the back, hydrocarbons and sulphur.
What you have there is an explosive Pepsi/Coke argument.
Having no means of self defense makes honest citizens more vulnerable to crimes of violence and make these crimes easier for criminals.
All banning firearms would do is make honest citizens helpless against criminals including the criminals running our country. They have effectively banned firearms and self defense in England and all that has done is is make honest citizens helpless against criminals. England has more robberies, assaults and rapes now.
All banning firearms would do is make honest citizens helpless against criminals
I believe the I said basically that in the very comment you replied to.
Phoenix had several home invasion incidents that made the news recently. In one, all 3 people that were in the house ended up in the hospital, a couple in their late 40's, and a 25 year old disabled daughter who was shot. In another, the homeowner shot and disabled the attacker.
That is always going to happen, but you need a deterrent to make not possessing a gun far outweigh possessing one. Death penalty for doing so is a pretty good deterrent. That's going to reduce gun ownership, and by default, home invasions.
LOL! So you think that disarming honest citizens will reduce crime? The fact is that will do the exact opposite. Strong young criminals will be encouraged to rob, etc the citizens who are disarmed. I bet that crimes inn England are much hire now that they don't have firearms to defend themselves from with.
How are citizens going to defend their liberty from government? In the USA we have had a tyrant like Hitler, Mao or Stalin largely because our citizens are armed.
We are likely to need to defend our liberty from our government if Dems gain power. They plan to destroy our government so they will remain in power forever while informing the constraints of our constitution.
In the USA we have had a tyrant like Hitler, Mao or Stalin largely because our citizens are armed.
Who was this tyrant, or were you using the American negative?
AJ
In England the home owner who killed a criminal in self defense would be charged with murder and could go to prison. We had a guy who killed a black and every relevant evidence support his claim of self defense.
However, Obama need to use this to lie his way into power so b the Dems tried him for murder and preyed on black's racist fears. So the real victim had to spend a year in prison until he was found not guilty by reason of self defense. I watched the v whole trial and it was an obvious case of self defense. Even the prosecution proved it was self defense, but lying about this allowed Obama to lie his way into power with record turn out by blacks..
Ban guns, ban the possession and carrying of them and make doing so an automatic death penalty. Once people start being executed for carrying, people will pretty damn quickly stop carrying and the gun violence will drop off a proverbial cliff.
You are right, this would certainly solve the problem, but...
Do you really think there is any chance it would be implemented so draconian?
We would end in a situation where only criminals and police have guns as already in most countries in the world and some US states as well.
I know there are some quarters in many German cities where you'll never see police foot patrols and few police cars patrolling. The police will enter these quarters only in force (two or three patrol cars together) and reaction to emergency calls is slow or none at all.
For many years there was a sultanate in a neighborhood of Cologne where the German authorities ignored the de-facto rule of the 'sultan' and him ignoring German law.
HM.
I know there are some quarters in many German cities where you'll never see police foot patrols and few police cars patrolling. The police will enter these quarters only in force (two or three patrol cars together) and reaction to emergency calls is slow or none at all.
I spend quite a lot of my time in Frankfurt. The worst part of the city is near the main station and what you are describing is certainly not the case there - the police presence is very visible.
Something someone told me a couple of years back (no idea if it is true) is that the small business owners in the area have joined forces in the name of intimidation of troublemakers - their businesses depend on foot traffic.
I remember a few years ago that there were thousands of Muslims on the streets raping women. These women needed to carry firearms so they could defend themselves from the rapists. Furthermore, their would be fewer tapes and other crimes as a result.
Do you really think there is any chance it would be implemented so draconian?
Realistically in America? No.
Interestingly enough as draconian as it is, it was implemented in the UK after Hungerford and Dunblane (School in Scotland). We (the UK) had one. ONE mass school shooting and collectively said "NO, not again."
Automatic firearms were banned, gun ownership severely restricted and guess what? No more mass school shootings....
America on the other hand....
But England has more crimes because citizens have no effective defense against criminals. They know this so they commit more crimes.
No, they commit the crimes because they know how stretched the police are and that the chances of them being investigated and charged is remarkably slim. And if they do get charged, the prisons are so full that inmates are being kicked out quicker than they should be to make room for the new arrivals.
I know there are some quarters in many German cities where you'll never see police foot patrols and few police cars patrolling. The police will enter these quarters only in force (two or three patrol cars together) and reaction to emergency calls is slow or none at all.
For many years there was a sultanate in a neighborhood of Cologne where the German authorities ignored the de-facto rule of the 'sultan' and him ignoring German law.
Sadly, there are places in the UK becoming like that. It has nothing to do with guns but ineffectual police hampered by idiotic politicians.
If police were allowed to do their jobs, unhampered by politicians trying to score political brownie points, then the issue wouldn't exist in the first place.
However, Politicians are obsessed with allowing unchecked immigration.
Granted the majority of them were alcohol-fueled, and brain cells go on holiday when that happens.
Yep, we need to ban alcohol. A lot of lives would be saved.
And how about giving a DUI the death penalty. That will surely stop people from driving drunk.
Hell, Some states don't even put murderers on death row. And if for some reason they end up there, it takes 20+ years before they can execute them with all the mandatory and voluntary appeals that get filed.
Hell, Some states don't even put murderers on death row.
I was facetiously responding to: "Ban guns, ban the possession and carrying of them and make doing so an automatic death penalty."
I have always been in favour of that.
If you kill due to drink driving, then that should be your punishment, and it should be carried out, not held off for decades.
People would be too scared to risk getting behind the wheel drunk, and wouldn't take their car to the pub.
Same for drug driving.
It would probably cut down the number considerably, but there will always be those few who believe 1) It doesn't apply to me, 2) Then there are the "Honest, ocifer, I'm not drunk.", and 3) They are so obsessed by something that they don't even think about obeying that stupid law.
I would suggest some kind of monitor attached to the driver that tests for blood alcohol, but we all know that ten minutes after such a law is passed there would be several thousand figuring out ways to fool it.
I would suggest some kind of monitor attached to the driver that tests for blood alcohol,
That already exists for HGV's in the UK. In order for the engine to start, you must blow into a sensor in the vehicle for the ignition to turn on, and yes, it was also immediately circumvented by drunk drivers getting someone sober to blow into the tube.
There are rumours of it being brought into law for cars, but it's getting pushback from car makers. However, that might change with a drunk driver crashing into a group of schoolkids.
Not a mad obsession, it's our civil right guaranteed by the constitution. It enabled self defense against criminals and against our government tyranny. Seeing what the Dems plan to do when they take power Americans are likely to need their firearms to fight tyranny soon.
They plan on packing the Supreme Court so they will be able to ignore the constitution. They also plan on ending the filibuster so a minority will not be able to stop their fundamental change to no our country then they will legalize all the illegal aliens. Followed by adding to democratic states which will give them four more permanent democratic senators and control of the Senate.
These b changes are intended to give the Dems permanent control of our federal government. This is were the 2nd amendment will allow Americans to defeat their tyranny.
Not a mad obsession, it's our civil right guaranteed by the constitution.
The firearms guarantee our civil rights; the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
All one has to do is look to the 'Switch in Time That Saved Nine', the Warren and Burger courts, and NFIB v. Sebelius to see that the paper holds no real power.
I wish that I could carry a concealed weapon but California violates the second amendment and refuses to let people bear arms so I can't.
lmao this is absolutely not true you loon
edit: loooool it's not even remotely close to true and if you don't understand why I'm not going to explain it to you because it means you're too stupid to own a gun and I'm glad you haven't figured out how the process works.
There is a well-known saying;
If all you have is a hammer, then everything becomes a nail.
Americans are far too quick to pull out a gun at the slightest provocation. The other person(s), if armed, seeing a weapon being pulled, will pull their own. That's only going to end one way, and will probably involve innocent bystanders in the crossfire. Your right to bear arms does not supersede the right of others to live.
Americans always say it's for their safety; it's to stop them being robbed, shot, keep the Government in check, blah, blah, blah. And that they are responsible enough to own one, but here's the thing: I think it was Tyson that said, "Everyone has a plan till they are punched in the face" (or something similar). And that applies to gun ownership. Everyone thinks they are responsible until their blood is raised and then common sense goes out the window and everything can only be sorted with weaponry.
Oh, and Americans, if you are that worried about your Government that you believe (let's be real here, you believe wrongly) that the only answer is retaining weaponry, then don't forget that it was yourselves that voted the fuckers in in the first place. And no, not voting is not a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' Not voting is a vote in itself.
We all have the ability to steer the direction of our Governments. Don't like them? Vote the fuckers out. They will get the hint.
Granted, our (UK) fuckwits seem a little slow on the uptake, but I think we are finally getting through to them...
Don't like them? Vote the fuckers out.
That is not so easy in a democracy.
Did you know that most gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicide? And when you take the suicide deaths out of the numbers, most gun deaths are done with guns obtained illegally or possessed unlawfully.
And the mass shootings, as tragic as they are, are a tiny number in the overall gun deaths. It's just something the media loves to show, and certain politicians use for their own reasons.
If the media and politicians really want to show gun violence, they should report on what happens in Chicago every day. And Chicago has strict gun laws. But that gun violence doesn't suit their agenda.
Look, I don't own a gun. I never will. The only rifle I ever fired was in the Army in basic training.
The violence in the U.S. is much deeper than gun ownership.
One fellow that stabbed 5 people in Chicago was asked why he stabbed them. His response, "I couldn't get a gun." He was only mad at 1 of the 5. Illinois doesn't have enough jail space for all the shooters.
Did you know that most gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicide? And when you take the suicide deaths out of the numbers, most gun deaths are done with guns obtained illegally or possessed unlawfully.
And the mass shootings, as tragic as they are, are a tiny number in the overall gun deaths. It's just something the media loves to show, and certain politicians use for their own reasons.
No, I didn't know that (about suicides) and I can believe that most guns are purchased illegally, though your largest mass murderer (Stephen Paddock) bought his arsenal legally.
As for media just focusing on mass shootings, let me re-quote a quote from earlier "a study in the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice covering a 22-year span showed that the U.S. had 101 such attacks, compared to Franceβthe country with the next highest recorded numberβwhich had eight"
Something is seriously wrong somewhere in American culture.
I did watch a video years ago, titled something along the lines of "Why does America have a gun problem?" The video laid the blame squarely at the feet of gun makers lobbying (obviously successfully) politicians to obstruct gun controls.
I should probably also admit that I have legally shot dead enough people to be technically classed as a serial killer... eek!
a study in the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice covering a 22-year span showed that the U.S. had 101 such attacks, compared to Franceβthe country with the next highest recorded numberβwhich had eight
How many did Somalia have? Sudan? Afghanistan? Nigeria?
AJ
Why do you just worry about crime with firearms. If citizens are disarmed then they have no effective defense against criminals. You are enabling criminals to commit crime by disarming their victims. There is no way for the most honest citizens to defend themselves from young athletic criminals. This situation is much worse than allowing your honest citizens to be defend themselves with firearms.
How many did Somalia have? Sudan? Afghanistan? Nigeria?
No idea. The search was focused on lone or paired killers, not on state-sanctioned massacres.
"a study in the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice covering a 22-year span showed that the U.S. had 101 such attacks, compared to Franceβthe country with the next highest recorded numberβwhich had eight"
And how many has Iran had? Just this last protest murdered tens of thousands. Is it not a mass shooting when people associated with the government is doing the shooting?
Most guns are purchased legally and never used to shoot people. The words and actions of democratic leaders motivate citizens to purchase firearms. I purchased my AR15 and thousands of rounds of ammo because of Obama. The Dems attack semi automatic rifles like AR15s because they're the best tool for citizens to resist the fundamental change that Dems want to impose. Only 3% of all murders are committed with a rifles so banning them has nothing to do with crime.
I purchased my AR15 and thousands of rounds of ammo because of Obama.
As an outsider looking in, you sound/come across like a complete loon with a tinfoil hat.
Most guns are purchased legally and never used to shoot people. The words and actions of democratic leaders motivate citizens to purchase firearms. I purchased my AR15 and thousands of rounds of ammo because of Obama. The Dems attack semi automatic rifles like AR15s because they're the best tool for citizens to resist the fundamental change that Dems want to impose. Only 3% of all murders are committed with a rifles so banning them has nothing to do with crime.
showed that the U.S. had 101 such attacks, compared to Franceβthe country with the next highest recorded numberβwhich had eight"
Which again shows how statistical data can easily be used to skew the facts.
101 to 8, wow! But the population of the USA is nearly 5 times as much as the population of France. Considering the population difference you will get a ratio of 101 to about 39.
HM.
Which again shows how statistical data can easily be used to skew the facts.
101 to 8, wow! But the population of the USA is nearly 5 times as much as the population of France. Considering the population difference you will get a ratio of 101 to about 39.
That is a fair point.
So let's take the population of USA in 2025; 341,784,857 and divide it by the number of mass shootings 101, and you get a mass shooting for every 3,384,008 people.
The population of France in 2025 was 68,600,000, divide it by 8 and you get a mass shooting for every 8,575,000 people.
The USA has more than twice the rate of shootings than their closest rival France.
For curiosity's sake I looked at the UK. It's rate is one every 23,166,666. Given that many see The USA and the UK as being comparable in society/values, America has almost 7 times more mass shootings (The data for the study was collected for the time between 2000 and 2022).
So yeah, America has a problem that they are determined to ignore.
So yeah, America has a problem that they are determined to ignore.
Because too many people want to try and make guns the problem rather than dealing rationally with the real causes of violence.
You will find that very few people in the pro-2A community in the US will deny that the US has a violence problem.
And unfortunately most of the cause of the violence has emigrated across our southern border.
And unfortunately most of the cause of the violence has emigrated across our southern border.
Actually no. There are many causes of the violence from organized crime (transformed by prohibition and given a huge boost to the violence by the war on drugs) to the huge variation in cultures included in the US and the many tensions that produces.
Then explain why 2/3 of the detainees in the Cook County jails are from south of the border, and a high percentage are illegals. There is a similar situation in Arizona jails.
Then explain why 2/3 of the detainees in the Cook County jails are from south of the border, and a high percentage are illegals. There is a similar situation in Arizona jails
For many reasons, including but not limited to the fact that poor people are much more likely to end up in jail, that strangers are much more likely to end up in jail, and that prejudice increases the likelyhood of them ending up in jail.
Also the fact that the use sends people to jail for many victimless crimes while ignoring (or at least not prosecuting sufficiently) more serious crimes.
Oh and of course the fact that people can end up in jail for the fact that they crossed the border makes it likely that people who crossed the border illegally will end up in jail.
The contents of your jail have no bearing on a discussion about violence unless you only throw in jail people who are guilty of violence.
Oh and of course the fact that people can end up in jail for the fact that they crossed the border makes it likely that people who crossed the border illegally will end up in jail.
The Cook County jails have nothing to do with the CBP or TSA. They are dealing with the hard core criminals in and around Chicago.
The Cook County jails have nothing to do with the CBP or TSA. They are dealing with the hard core criminals in and around Chicago.
I'd like a cite for that. What I found is that (in 2021) about 92% of the inmates in Cook County jail were in for pre-trial confinement. i.e people who couldn't afford bail, and 2/3 of them aren't even accused of any violent crime so as I said the entire thing is not relevant to a discussion of violence in the US.
https://chicagocouncil.org/waiting-for-justice-criminal-court-backlog-in-the-age-of-covid-19/
What I found is that (in 2021) about 92% of the inmates in Cook County jail were in for pre-trial confinement. i.e people who couldn't afford bail
Cash bail is no longer required in Chicago or anywhere in Illinois. The state completely eliminated the cash bond payment system under the Pretrial Fairness Act (part of the SAFE-T Act), which went into effect on September 18, 2023.
Here's the citation: https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/bond-costs-criminal-case
Oh, and Chicago is a sanctuary city and Illinois is a sanctuary state so they don't cooperated with CBP, ICE, etc.
That would be a more impressive citation if the article from 2021 didn't already mention that the judges were routinely violating the law in how they approved/denied said release and the bail they were setting.
I'd like to think things have improved over the past 5 years, but as I said I can't find any actual cite for that.
And unfortunately most of the cause of the violence has emigrated across our southern border.
Isn't that a good thing - the cause of the violence leaving the country?
AJ
No, they have emigrated into the country.
I believe migrating into a country is immigrating and migrating from a country is emigrating.
AJ
We all have the ability to steer the direction of our Governments. Don't like them? Vote the fuckers out.
I forgot to mention two things. 1) my "fuckers" are your heroes and visa versa. And, 2), the U.S. Constitution allows voters to change it. If two thirds of the states vote to change the 2nd Amendment, then we will no longer have the right to bear arms. So we can vote our way out of that. Yeah, right! Get 2/3 of the states to approve anything! You can't vote your way out of a problem.
my "fuckers" are your heroes and visa versa.
Are you certain about that? Trump is seen as an idiot by the majority over here. Mind you, most of us think the same about Never-here Kier.
Yeah, right! Get 2/3 of the states to approve anything! You can't vote your way out of a problem.
With an attitude like that, a solution will never be found. I should also point out, that you just need enough bodies in the right place with a shared desire, and change will happen. Look at the fall of the Berlin wall. No fucker saw that coming.
And you don't need weapons to overthrow a government; if you think a populace can't do so, Portugal (1974), Romania (1989), Czechoslovakia (1989), Yugoslavia (2000), Bangladesh (2024), Nepal (2025), Bulgaria (2025) and Madagascar (2025) would all like a word in your shell-like....
When the government doesn't care about opinion and the citizens are disarmed there is no way to overthrow it.
When the government doesn't care about opinion and the citizens are disarmed there is no way to overthrow it.
There have been plenty of governments overthrown by the populace without the use of firearms. I listed some of them somewhere in this thread. So it's well documented that it's possible. Like I said earlier, America is trapped in circular thinking, unable to progress or break free.
Mind you, most of us think the same about Never-here Kier.
The way to spell Bumblebore's name correctly is to remember "two-tier Keir". The i and the e are the other way round.
AJ
Wrong! Any of the Constitution and its amendments can be changed by a 2/3 vote of the states, and that includes the Bill of Rights. Just like the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment to end prohibition.
Wrong! Any of the Constitution and its amendments can be changed by a 2/3 vote of the states, and that includes the Bill of Rights. Just like the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment to end prohibition.
Er, no.
Propsal: 2/3 of the Senate + 2/3 of the House OR a Constitutional Convention called by the States
3/4 of the States must approve in either case.
There is one limit β no amendment may eliminate equal State representation in the Senate (*).
That said, a convention could do anything, and so long as enough States agreed, a completely new constitution could be enacted (just as happened the first time).
(*) In theory, an amendment could eliminate this clause, then change the composition of the Seante.
Or by a Constitutional Convention called by the States.
Nope. If you read article 5 correctly, the states can apply to Congress for a convention, but it's Congress that actually calls the convention.
Nope. If you read article 5 correctly, the states can apply to Congress for a convention, but it's Congress that actually calls the convention.
Nope.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments
Congress is REQUIRED to call a convention upon application by the states. There is no discretion (which you implied).
You are right. I just mixed up my fractions. My Civics/American History classes were over 60 years ago.
Liar! Except that the ghetto gangsters carry guns or other weapons and use them to kill anyone who offends them. Other than these scum the USA has no more murderers than in Europe.
the USA has no more murderers than in Europe
Murders per 100K of population.
The USA 5.7 (65th in the world)
France 1.3 (136)
England/Wales 1.1 (142)
Belgium 1.0 (148)
Scotland 1.0 (149)
Finland 0.9 (153)
Germany 0.9 (156)
Denmark 0.8 (161)
Norway 0.7 (168)
Netherlands 0.6 (172)
Spain 0.6 (173)
Ireland 0.6 (175)
What's left of Europe is lower and I can't be arsed typing them out. But basically The USA has five times more murders than Europe, caused by more murderers. Go team USA!
About 80% of the list above USA is Latin America and the Caribbean. (not going there for my holidays...)
About 80% of the list above USA is Latin America and the Caribbean.
Is something in the air, water or soil of the Americas causing this? GDR.
HM.
Is something in the air, water or soil of the Americas causing this? GDR.
That is a very good question.
I'm no scientist, but given the list of countries, they all have one thing in common. Drugs. They either grow them or they are major distribution centres for them.
Murders per 100,000 inhabitants (top 50 countries)
Turks and Caicos Islands 76.340
Saint Kitts and Nevisβ― 64.160
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 51.321
U.S. Virgin Islands 49.857
Jamaicaβ― 49.440
Ecuadorβ― 45.723
South Africaβ― 43.720
Haitiβ― 41.152
Trinidad and Tobagoβ― 40.443
Saint Luciaβ― 39.044
Lesothoβ― 38.240
Bahamas 32.198
Hondurasβ― 31.442
Anguilla 29.136
Belizeβ― 28.058
Dominica 27.063
Saint Martin 26.900
Colombiaβ― 24.913
Mexicoβ― 24.859
Guatemalaβ― 23.366
Brazilβ― 19.275
Guyanaβ― 19.120
Costa Ricaβ― 17.745
Curaçao 16.920
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 16.585
Nigeriaβ― 15.747
Eritrea 15.608
Iraq (Central Iraq) 15.397
Puerto Ricoβ― 14.590
South Sudan 13.983
Grenada 13.666
French Guiana 13.388
Venezuelaβ― 12.647
Eswatini 12.515
Panamaβ― 11.707
Botswana 11.368
Nicaragua 11.347
Uruguay 11.245
Palau 11.227
Namibiaβ― 11.208
Dominican Republicβ― 10.917
Antigua and Barbudaβ― 10.716
Papua New Guineaβ― 9.340
Uganda 8.973
Peruβ― 8.605
Ethiopiaβ― 8.511
British Virgin Islands 8.166
Seychelles 7.967
El Salvadorβ― 7.898
About 80% of the list above USA is Latin America and the Caribbean.
Is something in the air, water or soil of the Americas causing this? GDR.
Half the countries and territories in Pixy's list are small, low-income places very near to the USA.
The low income means there is little tax money for arming law enforcement or border controls.
Being near the US means it is easy for criminals to smuggle in US-made guns, so they are better armed than the police.
There is some randomness due to small size. For example, each murder on Anguilla changes its rate by 7 points, so it looks like they had 4 people murdered in the year in question, which might be four separate murders or it might all be one gang battle. If there was one fewer murder the next year, that would move it significantly down that list. Conversely, one additional murder would move it a few places higher. The cutoff for the Top 50 list is under 8, so for a territory with a population of 12500 or less, any year that they have even 1 murder they will be on that list for that year.
Also, countries that have a large proportion of tourists may have effective populations somewhat larger than the "inhabitants" number, which may inflate the comparative murder rates a little.
Thinking about this, I think I've had two 'bad guy trying to kill you' situations (one 'off-page', but the reader knows what happened, and one only partly 'on-page'). In both cases, there was no chance of self-defense. One bad guy later died by firearm. The other did not and is, as best as we know, not dead, and his intended victim would not have wished him dead.
To me, it depends entirely on the characters (who, in turn, depend on the author, obviously). If the character is a strict pacifist, they wouldn't use a firearm even if one was present. Or, if the character was skilled at non-lethal self-defense, they would likely resolve the situation without anyone dying. I suspect most people would find that preferable. Some characters could gun down an assailant and be fine with it. Others would be tortured with guilt for life, even if it was entirely and obviously an 'either them or me' situation.
That doesn't necessarily say anything about the author. If I chose to write a pacifist, and had them pass up lethal self-defense, that wouldn't make me a pacifist (and I am not, in fact, a pacifist). It just means the use of force is incompatible with the story. If I do have any pacifists, though, it's news to me - no one has declared it.
It just feels like a fairly broad question, and one where there are a lot of nuanced answers. Characters should behave consistently with who they are, but there are a wide variety of opinions about lethal self-defense amongst average folks. Why would it be different in fiction?
When someone is attempting to murder you, you can commit suicide or defend yourself by killing the person trying to murder you. It's obvious that those who choose death are mentally ill. Self defense is a natural right and the sane choice.
When someone is attempting to murder you, you can commit suicide or defend yourself by killing the person trying to murder you.
That last part of the sentence turns it into a lie.
While I would certainly agree that killing a person trying to kill you is morally justified, that is far from the only way to defend yourself.
This is a (really bad) false dichotomy.
Besides your two options, you can:
1) Leave the situation (run away, drive away, etc)
2) Incapacitate the assailant
3) Get someone else (police, etc) to kill or incapacitate the assailant
4) Convince the assailant to desist
5) Put yourself in a safe room, etc, until the assailant gives up or is arrested, etc
I'm sure there are more, but that's more than enough to point out the false dichotomy.
And, even if one accepts the dichotomy, it's not at all 'obvious' that those who choose not to defend themselves are 'mentally ill'. A true pacifist might argue that everyone else is mentally ill. A Quaker, a Jain, or others might well believe the eternal spiritual cost of committing violence is worse than the loss of their Earthly existence. You may disagree, but that does not make them 'mentally ill,' it means their beliefs differ. If they are right, and violence will lead to eternal damnation, they are entirely rational to avoid it, even at the cost of their own death.
Mind you: these are not my beliefs. My point is that you're speaking in absolutes and dichotomies when neither is appropriate.
Besides your two options, you can:
1) Leave the situation (run away, drive away, etc)
2) Incapacitate the assailant
3) Get someone else (police, etc) to kill or incapacitate the assailant
4) Convince the assailant to desist
5) Put yourself in a safe room, etc, until the assailant gives up or is arrested, etc
This reminds me of the options for dealing with a toddler's tantrum in the smacking of children topic :-)
AJ
This reminds me of the options for dealing with a toddler's tantrum in the smacking of children topic :-)
ππππππππ
ππ»ππ»ππ»
Pixy! So glad to see you! Since AJ brought the thread up and you're clearly enthusiastic about it, I figured I'd mention that I had a question in there I think you must have missed.
Normally I'd let this drop, but I'm honestly interested in your answer! You can go find it in the thread if you like, but in a nutshell, your core thesis of the topic was that the researchers failed to control for items like "personality" when assessing child outcomes of being hit. I'm really interested in your explanation of why the RI-CLPM is insufficient. It gets brought up explicitly in the study as what was used to control for durable confounders, such as personality, so it's striking to me that you're so strongly arguing that this isn't something the researchers took into account.
I'm confident your concern is robust and well thought out, and I'd love it if you could share with me, for my own learning. Normally I'd just assume you didn't actually read the study and were just complaining about something you were totally ignorant of, but you made it quite clear that my assumptions are bad - and after all, what sort of a total moron would get so worked up about a study and not even bother to look if their problem with the study was addressed? It would be incredibly rude of me to assume you were that stupid.
I never replied for several reasons. First, I forgot all about it. Second, if I remember right, I had you pegged as being autistic, given your obsessive intractability and trying to have a discourse with you would be wasting both our time. Thirdly, the conversation was going nowhere other than in circles. Fourthly (is that even a word?), it looked to be skirting dangerously in territory that would irk management enough for it to be locked.
As for clearly being 'enthusiastic', I was acknowledging a witty retort by AJ. That you have managed to create a whole scenario out of that in your head, leads me back to my high functioning autistic consideration.
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. If you're the sort of dipshit who's too stupid to read the study they're complaining about, I can see how somebody that does things like "read words" and "write sentences based on what those words say" would come across as autistic.
It was quite hard to read the study as you didn't even have the grace to link it, so I did Google it and I was impressed at the author's ability to create an absolute word salad. Something I vaguely remember accusing you of doing.
When I read the study, all I could think of was "Wow, they are padding." Which is very common in research papers. Partly I think it's an institutional thing, where they say, "Write a thesis on X that is a minimum of Y words"
This teaches graduates to waffle.
Another issue with your question on the other thread, was that you were attributing other individuals' comments as being made by me and asking me to explain. Which I'm sure you will agree, is nigh on impossible as they weren't my posts.
Which was another reason I never replied (now that I have gone back and refreshed myself as to the topic).
you're the sort of dipshit who's too stupid to read the study they're complaining about,
Ah, you had to go there, didn't you? No reasoning, no examples, just straight to a personal attack. We are done here. Nothing further is going to be constructively gained.
Why do some authors refuse to embrace firearms and their use in self defense? This is insane! When a bad guy is trying to kill you, you need to do whatever it takes to stop him and if you have a firearm, you should use it to kill him first.
Because theory and reality don't often exist on the same...errr...page.
There is a reason firing squads are made up of many people, because studies have found that some were inclined to deliberately miss. Making them part of a collective helps lessen the guilt and makes it more likely for the shooter to aim properly.
Even trained soldiers struggle to kill when required, and it's one of the reasons why bayonet training is the way it is, because it's designed to break down innate mental barriers.
Of course, some people have no issue with killing, but for the majority of individuals (thankfully), when faced with the option of killing someone else, they hesitate, or fire warning shots, or aim to miss.
It should be pointed out, that out of those who actually do kill another human being, many have severe trauma issues after the fact. A fucked up version of 'survivor's guilt'. This, unsurprisingly, very rarely makes it into fiction, so those who glorify the act of taking a life (gang members for instance) are often taken by surprise by their emotions months after the deed.
Again, there is the caveat that some individuals are immune to the innate and societal restrictions to taking another life.
It should also be noted that American films have a history of romanticising gun violence, so you could argue that Hollywood is responsible for a certain level of indoctrination amongst certain demographics. "I'm gonna bust a cap in yo' ass.."
Under the pseudonym Adam Hall, Elleston Trevor wrote a series of books about a British secret agent, Quiller, who always refused to use a gun. I think one or two even made it onto celluloid.
AJ
Even trained soldiers struggle to kill when required, and it's one of the reasons why bayonet training is the way it is, because it's designed to break down innate mental barriers.
It should be pointed out, that out of those who actually do kill another human being, many have severe trauma issues after the fact.
Yep. I have a cousin who was very G.I. Joe, rah, rah army, etc... He ended up as a sniper in, I believe, Iraq. He gets very quiet and shakes when he talks about 'taking the shot'. The army trained him to kill, and he did it, but it wasn't easy then and he's still paying for it.
I did some research on this for a character, and most people who kill in immediate self-defense are traumatized by it afterward, some for the rest of their lives.
Yep. I have a cousin who was very G.I. Joe, rah, rah army, etc... He ended up as a sniper in, I believe, Iraq. He gets very quiet and shakes when he talks about 'taking the shot'. The army trained him to kill, and he did it, but it wasn't easy then and he's still paying for it.
I did some research on this for a character, and most people who kill in immediate self-defense are traumatized by it afterward, some for the rest of their lives.
While I Believe you about your cousin, and His Experiences in Combat, and afterwards.
That is NOT every soldiers' experience.
I recommend you read On Killing by LTC Grossman, who among other accomplishments was an Instructor of Psychology (and other matters) at the USMA WP (US Military Academy at West Point).
I have read extensively books by SLA Marshal, LTC Grossman, and others such as Mates and Muchachos (about combat in the Falklands conflict), since before I enlisted in 1983, and through my career (I retired in 2014). I served as a Cavalry Scout, then transferred to the Infantry, and also served in SOCOM (but NOT as an "Operator" but in as a 'Liaison'). I earned a CIB (Combat Infantryman's Badge), and engaged the enemy.
I am NO 'hero' (but had the Honor of serving alongside several heroic individuals). I fired my weapon, or crew served (and/or) turreted weapons at enemies. At least two occasions I am certain that I was the individual who ended an enemy. They had engaged My Soldiers, and if I hadn't acted their Lives would have been in danger!
Admittedly, I didn't have to view a person through sniper optics! The instances when a kill was confirmed, I wasn't the one to see the body. Nor did I have to photograph them! (We had to take digital pictures because a person we killed might be on a 'Black List' and thus the information was processed by Military Intelligence, and other agencies.
I took photos of others. If it was possible, and it always was for my units. Someone other than the trigger pullers went out to confirm the dead, take pictures, and gather other evidence. This had to do with procedures use of Deadly Force was Always investigated by CID (US Army Criminal Investigation Division) and/or FBI Special Agents; perhaps others too, such as JAG. Also, it was for phycological reasons.
I do occasionally have nightmares, and other issues. But NOT from putting down those who needed it.
There are many factors, and people are individuals. As a Generalization, the Closer you are to a person you kill, the more it is likely to effect you. Killing a person you Didn't intend to can be traumatizing. Viewing a target through a Sniper's Optics is similar to being extremely close; too often you can see their face, their expressions. Often such a target is unaware.
From the 1980's until I retired there were various training programs. One was titled "The Battle Hardened Mind" but It was not so much the program of instruction, but the capabilities of the NCOs who taught us! I was fortunate that in the early and mid 80's there were still Veterans of Vietnam (and other locals) who trained the units I was in. Were my Platoon Sergeant, First Sergeant, and others. Later it was SF personnel, or others who had been in combat (Panama, Desert Storm, the former Yugoslavia), etc. I was in Grenada, and though that was a minor contingency operation, It was a Learning Experience! Being shot at tends to get your attention!
SLA Marshal relates the first hand experiences of soldiers, but the reader has to put some context to it. Men Against Fire, Pork Chop Hill (Korea 1950-53), and Battle At Best (Normandy and the Netherlands in 1944), are among his better books. I also recommend A Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation (it mentions many things such as training, preparation, and nutrition). General Marshal advocated that the effects of Fear and Fatigue are practically identical. That soldiers who are experiencing Fear, become Fatigued more quickly. Soldiers who are fatigued are more prone to Fear (and to Psychological Trauma). That preparing for fear, and Conserving their Soldiers physical (mental and emotional) Energies are among the Most important things a Leader can do.
Learning that others have been shaken, or done foolish things, or acted differently than they were taught, and yet managed to survive, and accomplish their mission is worthwhile.
LTC Grossman is a Psychologist, and read everything written by SLA Marshal and others, and applied scientific rigor to Marshal's theories and speculations; as well as writings of others.
When you're at a restaurant and and someone tries to kill you, you have no hesitation in defending yourself by killing the thug.
Remember George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin? Trayvon was in his backyard when he decided to teach the crazy assed cracker a lesson so he left his yard and ran to confront Zimmerman. He knocked Zimmerman down and then pinned Zimmerman with his knees and banged Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk. Then Zimmerman shot Travon in the self defense.
This is description was supported in every significant respect by the forensic evidence.
This is a perfect example of why honest citizens should be able to carry concealed weapons for self defense.
How would the elderly defend themselves against criminals without firearms.
I had a HS classmate who was in Vietnam, spending a lot of his time there as a sniper. Last I talked with him, he still would not talk about that part of his service. He talked about being on patrols where his unit came under fire and they returned fire, and general life as a soldier in Nam, but not about the reasons he received his medals.
Why do some authors refuse to embrace firearms and their use in self defense? This is insane! When a bad guy is trying to kill you you need to do whatever it takes to stop him and if you have a firearm you should use it to kill him first. This isn't evil. It's common sense.
Do you have examples of authors going out of theri way in contrived ways to have their character use a gun? Because all the cases of 'stories with 'self defense without a gun' wre ones where it made perfect sense that the defender did not have access to a gun.
Also, not having a gun makes it a lot easier to justify "the hero beat the bad guy but he comes back the next day with help"
in most of the world, self defense has been OUTLAWED by governments, and actually defending yourself against a criminal normally results in a prison sentence longer then the criminal you stopped from raping you or your child for instance.
https://www.petersweden.org/p/sweden-pepperspray-illegal
in most of the world, self defense has been OUTLAWED by governments, and actually defending yourself against a criminal normally results in a prison sentence longer then the criminal you stopped from raping you or your child for instance.
LOL!
Might want to read your own cite, which even with all its bias and misused statistics fails to support your claim.
It was not only illegal, but a felony, to carry pepper spray on campus when I was in graduate school. It had been a felony everywhere in the state a while back. When that was repealed, they failed to remove the sections applying to state property, with the notion that they didn't want to be legal to bring pepper spray into to state capital. Only later did they realize it also left college campuses unprotected.
We carried it anyway. The odds of it being found were low, and (as far as I know, anyway) no one was ever prosecuted.
No one I know was ever threatened or needed to defend themselves, but it does mean I knowingly and intentionally committed a felony on a daily basis for several years.
Note that the penalties for carrying pepper spray, while potentially serious, are not longer than the sentence would be for rape, and the woman in the referenced article received a fine, not prison time. Per some very quick research, prison time is applied only if the pepper spray is used to commit another crime.
Plus, there are other defense sprays which can be carried legally there and which Swedish police encourage people to use. That's hardly a case of outlawing self defense. There were no legal sprays on campus when I was in school.
I wouldn't carry classic 'pepper spray' now, either. It was the right choice at the time, but there were limited alternatives and we didn't have the options we have now. Pepper spray turns out to be a fairly lousy self-defense option compared to others. I have no idea if the other options Sweden does allow are better, though.
Pepper spray was part of the plot in a Wes Boyd story (Bird in the Hand, not currently on this site). The kid had a restraining order out on a much larger kid and carried bear spray, assuming that big boy was going to ignore that restraining order.
In real life, there was an incident on a school bus (or a classroom) in my area around a week ago. Someone used pepper spray in an enclosed area and put a bunch of kids in hospital. He was arrested, no idea if there was anything more to it than someone doing stupid things.
One irony is that my characters commonly carry and mention 'bear spray'. This is the 1980s, though, and only one of them might be aware of later arguments against pepper-spray products (and clearly is not). Thus far, they've relied on other self-defense tactics and not sprays, but the threats have been manageable (with one exception, but that was handled by luck and a bunch of people acting).
It's not illegal anywhere (that I know of) to carry a small can of aerosol deodorant and a lighter... Just don't keep your finger down too long...
Or hair spray, which is more flammable than deodorant. Most spray deodorants are not flammable since they have had to remove the flammable propellants. Wasp spray also works.
I'm not sure how fast you could deploy that, though. Maybe it's quick, if you practice? I'm terrible with a lighter, but I never smoked. Much better with the long 'trigger-style' lighters, but even those don't light half the time.
It may be illegal to use them. Hopefully, the authorities sympathize with the would-be victim. And, hopefully, it doesn't turn into one of those cases where the burned victim successfully sues the intended victim into oblivion (those actually seem to be few and far between, thankfully).
I'm not sure how fast you could deploy that, though.
That would be situational.
If you are walking along a deserted, dark, heavily vegetated path whilst wearing noise-cancelling headphones pumping out your sonic poison of choice, then, yeah, you're a bit cooked.
If you are walking along and become aware of someone following a bit too close, or the bush further down the path that has just moved rather suspiciously, then you can reach into a pocket/handbag and retrieve your lighter and can of hairspray/Deodorant/WD40... 'just in case'.
I would say a can of WD40 is your best bet, as they come fairly small and with a flip-up plastic straw that goes on fire, allowing multiple bursts without needing to be relit.
As for being sued, the chances would be slim, as all you need to do is shout "Step away!" loudly (or claim to have done so), which then puts all the onus on your attacker. They made the choice to close the gap.
Law is a funny thing. In the UK, carrying a strong acidic or alkali substance without a VERY good reason, will get you arrested for 'intent', yet you can carry a hammer and an axe 'with intent' and 'get away with it' as a Dundonian girl found out recently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgeer1lkylo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d83w1yvyo
Law is a funny thing. In the UK, carrying a strong acidic or alkali substance without a VERY good reason, will get you arrested for 'intent', yet you can carry a hammer and an axe 'with intent' and 'get away with it' as a Dundonian girl found out recently.
One thing to keep in mind about "the law" is that it's very much interpreted by people and just because case 1 had the judge/jury/prosecutor conclude one thing, doesn't mean case 2 wouldn't have them conclude something else even under practically identical conditions.
I carry a pepper blaster which provides two shots of pepper spray in the form of a squirt gun. This is much easier to aim and fire than a aerosol can.
The daughter of a family friend carries bear repellent on campus. Some of those jocks can be a real bear.
The daughter of a family friend carries bear repellent on campus. Some of those jocks can be a real bear.
I have to wonder how effective bear spray would actually be.
While I'm sure if you actually sprayed someone in the face it would be quite effective, I believe Bear spray canisters are both harder to get ready to use than stuff intended for self defense against humans, and also because of the larger size both more obvious to the assailant and (I believe) harder/slower to aim.
All that means I wouldn't want it to be my first response, but I don't think it would be usable if it wasn't my first response.
She carried it because it had a longer range with less dispersal. It was smaller in diameter than a normal soda can, and a little taller.
She carried it because it had a longer range with less dispersal. It was smaller in diameter than a normal soda can, and a little taller.
That's smaller than the ones I've seen, which would help - less dispersal means that if she practiced with it it would be more effective but if she just carries one it would be even worse than not having anything.
I have to wonder how effective bear spray would actually be.
I never bother with bear spray when hiking in areas with bears. I just take along someone who can't run as fast as me.
Byrna has ads where I live for self-defense weapons that do not kill. They say they're legal in all 50 states. They fire chemical irritants like pepper spray or solid kinetic rounds at high speeds.
Byrna is a joke. Out of actual users, the pepper balls have a failure to rupture of 60%.
And the plastic pellets, well the users admit they are less useful and less damaging then AIRSOFT pellets.
Just reading Estate Living by Ernest Bywater. MC has licenses for carrying guns, also former SAS or similar. MC takes out five bad guys with permanent injuries. Did not need guns to kill them. Seems like a better read of smashing knee caps and elbows than just blowing them away.
As an aside, not many of the ex-military types depicted here were normal grunts (or Navy, or Air Force support), they were mostly Marines or Special Forces.
oyster50 is actually a positive exception there - his ex-military characters tend to have been combat engineers.
The usual counter-argument is 'ah, but if you let them live, they'll come after you for revenge.' Maybe, and maybe not - that's always a potential subplot - but if you follow that advice, you leave a trail of dead bodies, and the authorities usually don't like that, even if each dead body is reasonable self-defense.
Of course if the bad guys Don't know where to find you, then you are golden.
I have a story where the MC intervenes against four thugs, one armed with a baseball bat, who are attempting to attack a teen girl.
Earlier in the story, as well as at the beginning of the confrontation, I write that the MC has a concealed pistol (actually 2 pistols) [he is a private investigator, and is returning a work truck after an attempted home invasion robbery where he was hired to install security devices after the attempted crime; it was possible the criminals might return, and the police never responded, just provided an incident report number to the victim).
The MC chooses to engage the thug with a bat using an extendable baton. Targeting the calf (not the knee joint), and eventually a glancing blow to the skull. When another individual brandishes a knife, he uses POM (a particular pepper spray).
The situation is dangerous, potentially deadly, but the MC chooses to not escalate matters. While I don't tell, I show: the Thugs brandish their weapons. They are willing to inflict serious, possibly deadly injuries, but at first they are Attempting to intimidate.
The MC has a goal of getting the teen girl and himself into the cab of the truck (Not his personal truck) and drive away.
Paraphrasing what you said, "A Trail of Dead Bodies" is likely to attract the attention of the authorities!
It can be situational.
In my stories my 'good' characters tend to be situationally aware. If you kill a criminal inside your home, or trying to carjack you; Expect the Authorities to investigate! Get an Attorney, and have The Attorney speak to the authorities!
But if there is a dead pimp or thug in an alley, and no cameras or witnesses. Homicide Detectives and other LEO refer to that as NHI (NO HUMAN INVOLVED).
Some situations call for some "Premeditated Self-Defense!"
alot of authors come from lands were everyone is a peasant. Peasants dont get guns.
There is a swedish or norwegian author who wrote a crime series, and in it, the main charecter a cop, had to shoot and kill an islamic terrorist who was trying to kill cops while driving a delivery van filled with bombs.
I believe the next THREE novels were spent making the MC "feeling quilty" about kiling the poor misguided muslim terrorist.
That is all very vague - "a swedish or norwegian author", you don't know who? Names, or someone made the entire thing up.
alot of authors come from lands were everyone is a peasant. Peasants dont get guns.
Guess what, I live in a "land" where not many people get guns, and we're all a lot safer here because of that.
That is all very vague - "a swedish or norwegian author", you don't know who? Names, or someone made the entire thing up.
Could be Swedish author Henning Mankell with his "Kurt Wallander" series based in MalmΓΆ, or Maj SjΓΆwall and Per WahlΓΆΓΆ's "Martin Beck" series based in Stockholm. I've read most of the Wallander books more than 40 years ago and seen the Swedish/German co-produced TV series of the "Martin Beck" series. My guess it's 'Martin Beck' based on Beck's character. Sorry, don't remember many details of both series.
HM.