Man I love simple answers that just make the point in such a way as to be irrefuttable. Perfect answer August! :up: SHows much wisdom and I respect that.

-S

Incorrect. The man that defends oneself successfully has lost nothing, but possibly gained a new lease on life.

By the way, you missed the point that August made completely.

Sorry, but I disagree. A positive solution is gained whenever the criminal is prevented from committing his crime.

It took you quite some time to figure that out. In my first posting here I wrote that I'm German. How am I supposed to understand the US law system if I haven't been to the USA before?

I find it quite disturbing that you don't see any options between 'roll over and die' and 'shoot the bastard'. It happens over here too, there are certainly enough idiots around here, believe me.
You are certainly allowed to defend yourself in such a situation, over here, too - but that's not the situation you've been talking about before. If he really was trying to kill the other (as you wrote).
But to repeat myself: There ARE other ways out of such a situation.

As I have said before - there always are other options. And before you even try to argue: Yes, I know you have to think about them quite quickly. And yes, you may not come up with a solution, just as you might forget your gun or forget how to handle it properly. Which would just worsen the situation.

The thing is that this would only have happend if that Seattle man had been very lucky. Just think about the situation before you answer. Think about it. There are a couple of armed civilians running around a 2.600acre campus. There's a lot of shooting. You just run around with your gun, eager to help (which is OK). Now you come around a corner, and in front of you you see another person holding a gun. What next? Ask him whether he's the bad guy? If he is, you'll be dead before you finish the question, and that's too risky.

Let's just assume guns had been allowed on that campus. 100 people with guns running around plus one madman. 80 of the persons with guns are simply too scared (which is just a human reaction, so don't blame them). 20 of them draw their guns trying to find the madman. From my point of view I predict that at least half of them would have died - killed accidentally or mistakenly by some other 'law-abiding' person.

Again, think before you answer. It's not a shooting range. Real shots are fired, and they are fired at you. It's chaos. And there's something else. If you don't know who of the persons with a gun is the bad guy, how are the police going to find out? Again, it's chaos, it's not a peaceful shooting range where the worst enemy is a piece of wood/paper.

I understand your thoughts quite well, as well as I understand your wish to help others and to be a hero (who wouldn't like to be?). But it was an American who coined the term 'collateral damage', and you'd get an awful lot of that in such a chaotic situation.

Hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. If you still insist on calling me a sheep, don't hesitate.

This may be my lackingknowledge of American laws, so tell me: Does that go for every crime? Gun down a burglar, and you can pledge for self defense?

I understand where you are coming from a little better now. Progress! :D ANyway, I want you to know that if faced with 'any' other option to shooting someone, I'd take it. I have no problem running if I am able to!

Without getting into a long post (I'll save you till later since i have a ton of work that just swept in!), here are a couple examples where more school killings have been avoided simply because firearms were present:

So, sadley :cry:, we have more potential for school shootings at our present rate, but at least some have been stopped in progress by well minded citizens who were also armed.

I think our society is falling apart with stress as one of the major factors in making people snap. I doubt we can fix it either.

-S

Saying any "western" European nation is nearly irrelevant. It would be like you saying that any "wester" state in the U.S.

As for any single European nation, here's a list from the top:

Russia: 19.80
Lithuania: 9.38
Latvia: 8.58
Belarus: 8.31
Ukraine: 7.42
Estonia: 6.82
Albania: 5.68
Bulgaria: 3.08
Switzerland: 2.94
Finland: 2.75


Now, lets tally up North America vs. Europe:

North America (Mexico, Canada, and The USA): 20.95
Europe (All of Europe): 123.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Notice that the only country in North America with free gun laws is The United States of America. Mexico has some of the strictest in the world, and Canada is a given.

How many countries in Europe have "anti-gun" laws? A hell of alot.



Also, you need to "re-average."
-On average, all "Western" European Nations (UK, Ireland, Iceland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgum, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Sweden) have a combined homocide rate of ~1.444166666666666-6-6-6--> (To anyone who noticed, I might have left out a country during the math). Sure, it's low compared to the U.S., but when you compare thirteen countries, all with anti gun laws to one country with pro-gun laws IN SELECT STATES, you simply cannot.


Also, consider population size:

Europe: ~728 Million People
North America: 514,600,000 People

Save it for tomorrow, it's 11pm over here, and there's a lot of work to be done tomorroe.

Sorry, but that's plain wrong. There's a HUGE difference. Western Europe consists of independent nations, not just states within a federation.

I know why I wrote western Europe - because these nations all are parts of the former Soviet Union and parts of eastern Europe, suffering from high corruption, loads of illegal weapons and lax gun control (if enforced at all). I don't take Mexico into account (whose homicide rate is way beyond that of any European country)when talking about the USA, why are you doing it with European nations?

You're adding up percentages (OK, not per hundred but per hundredthousand)? :D Don't let any maths teacher see this :D ;) You'll of course have to calculate the average value to get a comparison ;)

You forgot some nations, strangely enough those with low values ;) Like Norway, Austria and Italy...

Telling me what?

Sorry, but that was guite a bad analysis of statistics :)

Ah, it does indeed. But when we add up North America (A total of three countries [excluding the Carribean and Greenland]), the whole "thing" changes.

Touche`. Why are you comparing us with "Western Europe" when you leave out the rest of our countries?

Here's where you made me laugh. You do not need an "average" to see what I'm talking about. Sure, North America may have a higher rate, but way over half of that is from Mexico, which has one of the stictest gun control laws in the world.

Oh, and don't let any grammar/English teacher see your post.;)

Ah, using the amazing list of countries in "Western Europe" that you provided earlier. :roll:

*sarcasm

Telling you the population distribution comparison of our two continents.

Sorry, but that was quite a bad analysis of someone's post. :)

The details vary some from state to state but broadly applied for it to be considered self defense the homeowner has to be in reasonable fear of his or his families lives.

In other words it would not be self defense to shoot a burglar in the back as he was leaving your property but it certainly would apply if he breaks in while you're at home.

Below is the entry for Vermont from www.packing.org

As I said before, we have the best gunlaws in the country.

As the Vermont Constitution reiterates, the 2nd Amd. is to protect the people from an oppressive government, not so much foreign invaders or criminals.

The sad state of affairs in America currently means we need to hang onto our weapons more than ever.

We have:
1. A Government launching wars for dubious reasons.
2. A Government setting up secret prisons where torture is conducted.
3. American Citizens Constitutional Rights being violated with dubious oversight.
4. Military Officers forced to violate the Code of Miliary Ethics to which all of them have sworn.

These are precisely the kinds of things our Founding Fathers had in mind when the added the 2nd Amd. Vermonters back in 1789, George Washington, and Ike all knew the dangers of a standing military. We may need to fight a second American Revolution presently.

Vermont is unique in that permits are not required for carry concealed or unconcealed for resident and non-resident alike. Local ordinances vary, though. VT has no statutes concerning concealed carry, nor is there a specific statute that allows it. In the absence of a statute that prohibits it, then it is taken that there is no law against it.
It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man. It is unlawful to carry a firearm within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased by such institution.
It is unlawful for a student to carry or possess a firearm "upon a school". The board of school directors may authorize the use of firearms for instructional purposes when facilities for such instruction are available.
It is unlawful to carry or possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a motor vehicle within the right of way of a public highway. Exempt are law enforcement officers and hunters who are paraplegic or have a "severe physical disability" and have been issued a permit by the fish and game commissioner.
Vermont State Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17435568.htm

He wasn't even American. This is the same as blaming Europeans for the crimes committed by Turks & the like. Maghrebians set Paris on fire? Oh there's too much stress in the French society, it's not even their fault, forget about it, besides, they have way too many matchsticks around.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17424561.htm

Apparently he already displayed sociopathic behavior before his rampage. Medication for depression, not answering those who say hello, playing basketball alone all day long and exemption from responsibility. It wasn't his fault, the rich kids, debauchers and deceitful charlatans caused him to do it. Nobody knew him. He also set a dorm room on fire in the past. Who allowed the psychopath to remain on campus after that? He even had a green-card, something millions of people dream with but that didn't seem to have much value to him.

If he suicided in the end that must mean killing other people didn't really made him feel any better. They weren't the cause of his problems. Now if only he had had a saner mind he could've skipped the killing and jumped straight to the suicide part. This idiot must've missed childhood. I learned from a very early age that the problems that are mine can't be solved by discharging on other people. Not only that, but these other people can be there to help me!

This thread has become rather horrid.

How long `till you think it will be closed, Tchocky? (In pages)

My be is on two more.