no animals were harmed in the winning of this seige!
 

DEADSTOCK ACTUALLY and not animals! The first example of catapulting plague victims into a besieged city was that of Caffa (Modern day Feodosia) in the Crimea. This was in fact the first account of plague in European history.
Caffa had been under siege by the Mongol (aka. Tartar or Golden Horde) army. The siege had been long a protracted. First starting in 1343, it was lifted by the arrival of Italian reinforcements in January 1344. The city was again under siege in 1345 however, a year later the Mongols started to die from a new disease - plague.
The Mongols tried to force the siege by catapulting victims corpses into the city and they were successful in spreading the disease to Caffa people. Even during the siege, Caffa's sea ports remained open and trade was conducted by Italian merchants with other nearby cities under Mongol control. Thus from here the plague was spread out to the rest of Europe. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/360/how-did-a-besieged-city-castle-defend-itself-vs-catapulting-diseased-dead-bodie

Well, then, has it been peer-reviewed? I am curious

It is not that such incidents „fatal accidents with kids with guns“ don't happen in Germany, too. One of my father's friends son was shot by his playground comrade at the age of11 by accident. He had a sleep-over at his frends' home. His daddy was a head of department. The two boys opened the weapon's safe, took out a gun and played „Cowboys and Red Indians“. Obvously the hand gun was loaded and so Daddy's sun shot his friend.


Daddy was facing a prosecution for negligent homicide which was later turned down because the weapon had been kept in a gun safe, Daddy had a gun permit, and had told his son not to play with guns etc. pp.


The family that had lost a son of age of 11 later split up, too much of a Trauma for each of them.

It took me a while to find out - but yes - it is a peer reviewed article. It falls under the Harvard Law publication rules, which is peer reviewed.

http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/dos/stud...-publications/

If you note the link for the article, as well as a google search, it does show it was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (Vol. 30). Thus it would be a peer reviewed article/paper.

Well, it would be sort of amusing if the dreams of Ukrainian pro Maidan people do come true and a Moscow version of Maidan would happen... only to be crashed under the walls of Kremlin of course.

I dunno, 1991 was scary enough.

http://valdaiclub.com/media/main/98/9175.jpg

Gotcha.

Though, the high murder rate for Luxembourg still is very strange.
I know where they got it from, but it still doesn't make much sense,
if you compare it to other available sources that indicate the rate is
much lower than that shown in that paper. :hmmm:

EDIT: Here are the numbers from Nationmaster.com for Luxembourg:
2000: 0.92
2001: 1.37
2002: 0.90
2003: 0.70

And as Finland is mentioned, I can tell you the amount of guns has very little to do with the murder rate.
Vast majority of our guns are for hunting or hobby purposes.
This is a country where many feel safe to keep their front doors unlocked. :yep:

What is interesting is the murder rate competition in between European courtiers with higher gun ownership to the one with almost none , where often the numbers are in favor of the courtiers with more guns....
I have not red this research in detail yet it does seem this research has not taken into account the legislations surrounding gun ownership in such countries and the gun culture deriving in part from this legislation.

It is not just a matter of numbers but whole legislation and culture surrounding it.

Something almost non existent in the USA where it is mostly every one for himself.

Bessy the terrible...


http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/23...28124b7345.jpg

Good Queen Bess

http://trocheniepowagi.files.wordpre...ko5bo1_500.gif

Well those are heavy AFVs, something Maidan activists lacked and that the 2nd amendment also does not provide.

OK - I am not TRYING to be offended, but what you wrote states that either gun regulation through legislation does not exist in the US - which is in error - OR - you are simply saying that the US has no "culture".

I am going to assume that its just coming across wrong. Still, I will address the claim.

Every State has its own laws concerning firearms - and every State must also follow Federal firearms laws. To say that there is a lack of legislation regulating firearms in the US is simply not accurate. A person can not just turn 18, go down to the local gun store, plop down a few Franklins and walk out with a firearm. Such a purchase requires a Federal background check. (Before someone starts talking "gun show loophole" - remember that most states also require a purchase permit that entails a background check as well).

As to the "gun culture" - whether in the US or in other civilized countries, firearms are generally treated with a certain modicum of respect as the dangerous weapons they are. The situation in Idaho is a perfect example - I have not seen any serious gun owner in the US who does not hold the "victim" as the most responsible party for what happened. The general population of any society that has a high gun ownership rate also has a healthy RESPECT and understanding for how dangerous a firearm CAN be. While those not in the US may not comprehend that the average gun owner in the US shares that attitude, it does not mean that it does not exist. Media paints a picture that is not always accurate - and most media has an agenda that is furthered by pushing the "American Gun Nuts" picture.

Just as an example - take a look at the following:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-Idaho-Walmart

While people disagree on a lot in the thread - the one agreement is that the victim failed to carry in a safe manner - because her kid could get to it. Safety tends to be the first consideration by most gun owners who carry - but people (both in the US and outside it) don't get to see that often. It goes back to the picture painted by the media.

I think the thing that the US has that many other nations doesn't is a very recent history, the US's early roots and struggle for survival came about in an era where the gun had replaced the sword. Whereas in other nations, in particular Europe, most nations were pretty well cemented by the era of the gun, and thus there isn't that connection between the gun and the country.
Oddly though, presumably because of the legislation that has regulated the ownership of weaponry since the 1700s in most nations, other weapons haven't become quite as synonomous with European nations as the gun has to the USA. Although I think if one was to dig hard enough they might find some, English Longbowmen, Scottish claymores, Swiss Pikemen, Scandinavian axemen. However, there's not as much of a fascination with those weapons as there is with guns in the US. So perhaps it's a legislation thing. :hmmm:

Well, it's difficult to put a longbow, hand axe or claymore into a holster under your jacket. Furthermore they probably require more training than a gun that you basically just align with your target and then squeeze the trigger.
Or in short, those weapons aren't very handy and aren't up to date so no one wants to use them.

Yeah the general public just said "nah forget it". It had absolutely nothing to do with the efforts of Europes historical leaders to keep the peasantry as disarmed as possible.

Reminds me of a quote from Braveheart (always the acme of authority in these discussions) :D

William: You dropped your rock.
Hamish: It's a test of manhood.
William: You win.
Hamish: Call it a test of soldiery then. The English won't let us train with weapons, so we train with stones.
William: Well, a test of a soldier is not in his arm, it's here [points to his head].
Hamish: No, it's here [points to his fist, then punches William]