[axxxel]

Hello THR!

Later this week I'm hosting an evening seminar here in Sweden on firearm laws globally. Discussed topics will be the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the current firearm situation in Sweden and last but not least the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, more specifically the history of the 2nd amendment movement and the current situation with gun control in the US.

Since I know the people who are coming I know that when talking about the concept of concealed carry and such one often reoccuring perspective is the following:

"Well maybe it would be a good thing to keep a revolver in my purse when I'm walking through a rough neighbourhood, but if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets!"

How would you reply to this?

One thing to note is that in most of Sweden we don't have as much robberies and such as in some parts of the US, and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise. Because the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys.

[Tcruse]

Criminals already have guns and will use them if they think they can get away with that action.

[guyfromohio]

They already have guns.

[Bio-Chem]

I can see the OP's predicament. On the surface it might be looked at as potentially arming the streets, if the perception is that local criminals are relying on other tactics, such as surprise, intimidation, or sheer strength of numbers to carry out their crimes. However, I think it is only a surface argument if one looks at it more closely.

If criminals know that they are likely to encounter an individual who is armed and prepared to protect themselves are they in response going to arm themselves, or are they more likely to change tactics altogether? their goal is to commit a crime by putting all the advantages in their favor, thereby limiting their risk. If they were to arm themselves in response to an armed populace they are not putting advantages in their favor, but simply bringing themselves on somewhat equal footing. they don't want that equality. I believe they would tend to avoid encounters where their intended target could potentially be armed, and focus on situations where they could relatively assure that their target would not be armed.

interesting exercise to think like a criminal. For me the simple answer boils down to as a citizen not wanting to be in a situation where I am helpless to defend myself. When I don't have the option of action is when I feel helpless.

[mljdeckard]

Criminals like easy targets. Not armed targets.

[oneounceload]

Since your criminals rely on a group attack, carrying a gun by an individual will tend to equalize the sides to some degree as I doubt even the gang leader will volunteer to be the first one shot..............

[jon_in_wv]

Criminals rob people for money not to get in shootouts. If people could be armed they are armed they dont get a bigger gun, they rob someone who isn't armed.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[jj1962hemi]

We have 49 of 50 states with some provision for concealed carry. Some states have no regulations (or nearly none). We (the USA) have not seen a rise in violent crime at all, and, to my knowledge, the severity of attacks has not increased either. In other words, criminals aren't saying: "I'll just kill them and be done with it. The risks are too high not to go in with a gun out."

I think that, as more countries get a more heterogeneous population (like the USA versus Japan, which is composed of 95+% people of Japanese ancestry), the lack of shared cultural norms will increase the incidence of violent crimes.

[hso]

muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise.

We don't use firearms to prevent or stop robberies. Their use is to defend life and limb, not property. If your muggers have a social contract with their victims in Sweden that intimidation is the basis for the relationship and physical violence against the victim is unacceptable you'll have a difficult time selling the idea that carrying a weapon is worthwhile. Here in the U.S. and elsewhere our criminals have no such social contract and may assault or kill their victims. In the most horrible cases they take them prisoner and torture/rape them (as happened in my relatively peaceful community a few years ago).

[nickn10]

One thing to note is that in most of Sweden we don't have as much robberies and such as in some parts of the US, and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise. Because the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys.

If submitting to a robber with a high likelyhood of not being injured is the belief of your audience then they might be inclined to forego arming themselves. On the other hand if they believe that it is very possible that they may suffer serious injury during the course of a robbery, then protecting themselves may make them consider a firearm. My decision to carry is based on the belief that if things degrade to possibly becoming lethal, I at least have a chance of surviving it. Also consider that practice and training will increase your odds, just putting a gun in your purse is no guarantee of a good outcome.

[HankB]

There's a quote by the late Jeff Cooper that would seem to bear directly on the original poster's concerns about someone who fears elevating the level of violence by arming the innocent:

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

[ghitch75]

if robbers knew everyone was armed they would think twice...

[rodinal220]

It seem like here in the USA, the States that have the least gun control and concealed carry,castle doctrine,SYOG and other pro Second Amendment doctrine there seems to be less violent crime.Places like Chicago are a war zone,and not just with shootings,they have wildings/flash mob attacks that often do not make the media.I would rather live in Idaho or Montana than New York,New Jersey or ****.

An armed society is a polite society.Criminals are the problem not gun owners,hunters.

[needmorecowbell]

Let them know that violent crime has decreased after states enacted concealed carry laws. Here in Ohio, the anti-gun movement tried the same kind of scare tactics, that there would be shootouts in the streets. They also tried to scare everyone when we passed laws making it OK to carry in bars and restaurants. They claimed everyone would be getting drunk and gunfighting in the bars. That definitely has not been the case. Honest law abiding citizens are the ones getting the licenses, not the criminals. The criminals get guns and carry illegally. Having the option to carry a firearm is the only way you can legally have the option to protect you and your family. Unless of course you wear a sign on your outer garments that clearly states that it's illegal for bad guys to mug or harm you just like some businesses here have signs stating it's illegal to carry a firearm in their establishment. We all know that's 100% effective and safe!!!!!!

[beatledog7]

If criminals use strength in numbers, fear, and surprise, how can a citizen manage the odds of surviving an attack? By willfully submitting, or by being armed.

If criminals know citizens are armed, they may try to also arm up, but they probably are already armed and are just not willing to tip their hand since they don't have to as long as they operate against an unarmed citizenry. Laws should stop documented criminals from arming up.

In the US, we don't have very many street shootouts involving armed citizens and bad guys. In fact, we have almost zero. What we have is armed citizens protecting themselves from armed bad guys, as evidenced by the highest crime rates generally centering in areas where citizens are shackled by the strictest gun control laws.

Criminals, as you point out, like to have the upper hand, and where citizens are potentially armed, criminals lose that advantage.

[hso]

USA, the States that have the least gun control and concealed carry,castle doctrine,SYOG and other pro Second Amendment doctrine there seems to be less violent crime

That isn't borne out by the statistics. What is shown is that those states with restrictive gun control laws don't consistently show any benefit from them. High rates of carry don't reduce crime nor increase it (to the annoyance of Antis), but restrictions don't reduce violent crime at all. This means that there is no benefit to restrictive laws on firearms ownership or carry.

What is clearly seen is that carrying a firearm can make a difference for the individual who has the mindset and opportunity to use it to defend themselves against violence. Criminals who were interviewed in the famous Stossel show on firearms and violent crime repeated over and over that the last thing they wanted was an armed victim putting them at risk of getting away safely. They sought out the safest way to go about their business since being wounded or killed by a victim would interfere with their being able to carry out their carrier of crime.

If muggings in Sweden don't involve the victim being injured or killed there's no motive for carry on the part of the average citizen.

[Skribs]

That isn't borne out by the statistics. What is shown is that those states with restrictive gun control laws don't consistently show any benefit from them. High rates of carry don't reduce crime nor increase it (to the annoyance of Antis), but restrictions don't reduce violent crime at all. This means that there is no benefit to restrictive laws on firearms ownership or carry.

It doesn't annoy antis. Most antis will look at the number of murders, and if they see the number of "gun crimes" has gone down 10% (but knife murders are up 10%) they will see it as a victory because the crime is more evil if a gun is involved.

One of my coworkers is a huge anti, and she has flat out told me that she believes crimes are more evil if commited by guns.

[Lost Sheep]

Since your criminals rely on a group attack, carrying a gun by an individual will tend to equalize the sides to some degree as I doubt even the gang leader will volunteer to be the first one shot..............
Put another way, remember the old canard, "God created all men. Sam Colt made them all equal."

While an armed gang with the element of surprise does have the advantage over an armed individual, that advantage is less than the advantage that same gang (unarmed) over the unarmed individual.

On the other hand, if a gang suspects and individual is armed, they are more likely to seek out less dangerous prey. (the Stossel reference from hso post 16) This may not lessen crime, but does tend to make it relocate somewhere else.

On the other other hand, arming both victims and criminals is likely to leave crime at the same level, but have the level of injuries (all around) increase. This would be worse than the same level of crime without injuries, obviously.

So, here's where the "Pro" argument comes in. If the victims tend to be better shots, the general health of the criminals is likely to be less and the population, too. This is commonly called "street justice". In most places it is illegal. Some call it immoral. Whether its effectiveness overcomes the legal and moral objections is open to question. If more criminals than victims get hurt or killed, the crime rate will tend to go down, either by deterrence or by attrition.

If muggings in Sweden don't involve the victim being injured or killed there's no motive for carry on the part of the average citizen.
I have not been mugged, but I have been burglarized. The intense feeling of violation can be a powerful motive to make oneself a less easy target.

Lost Sheep

[C0untZer0]

if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets! the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys

If you talk to someone who has been raped, or mugged, you won't find anyone who takes comfort in the fact that the perpatrator used their fists and raw strength to brutalize them instead of a gun.

You won't find anyone happy that the perpatrators punched and kicked them or used a bludgeon or a knife instead of a gun to victimize them.

Your average citizen cannot prevail against a criminal when the target and criminal are supposedly "evenly matched" - as you have already pointed out, criminals use the element of surprise, shock, and disparity of numbers to overwhelm their victims. Not only is the average citizen not going to prevail against a criminal in fisticuffs or "unarmed" combat, they're not going to prevail against criminals when the confrontation involves pipes or other bludgeons, or knives.

Most societies recognioze that certain levels of crime are inevitable. The Second Amendment elevates the right of an individual to defend themselves above the various societal concerns that are often expressed. A society that does not allow individuals the means to defend themselves has made a decision that ceratin levels and types of crime are tolerable.

In the U.K. the government has made a decision that it is tolerable for people to be robbed, in their homes and on the streets, at knife point, or by threat or other weapons. But what is intolerable in the use of firearms, and moreso, what is MORE intolerable is citizens taking on the role of governmnet in protecting or defending themselves. In the U.K. it is the role of government to deal with the social issu of crime, and any private citizen who "takes the law into their own hands" is dealt with severly.

Nearly 240 years ago the Founding Fathers of the United States had a set of ideas that people of Europe found radical and the rulers of Europe found unacceptable. Those ideas have proven to be the genuine underpinnings of true freedom and liberty.

The monarchs have been replaced by socialist Prime Ministers, and Directors and Secretaries of Cabinets, and many of the American ideas, and especially the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, are still radical and unacceptable to them.

[jon_in_wv]

Other countries have the distinct advantage of taking a "moral" high ground by saying they don't have guns in their country so they don't have the kinds of crime we do. Yet if this country was unarmed it would be much more susceptible to attack and invasion from its enemies. We don't have the luxury of depending on the rest of the world for our freedom yet if the US were to fall how long would it be before our allies followed suit? To ensure the freedom of this country first and foremost out forefathers chose to allow us to defend our OWN freedom. With that freedom comes the chaos that goes with it. Some people will commit crimes. Its not the wild west like people in other countries seem to think it is. I've lived all around the country. California, where gun control laws are much stricter by the way, was by far the most dangerous. I've also lived in Texas, Minnesota, and West Virginia and I've lived there in peace with very little evidence of any crime.
I have never had any fear of law abiding people with guns, there IS nothing to fear from the them. The only thing to fear is crime run amok and empowered by a fearful and unarmed population. Free people shouldn't be unarmed and they shouldn't be oppressed by those who make the laws or by those who aren't inclined to follow it.

[hso]

she believes crimes are more evil if commited by guns.

She's never seen someone killed with a knife at the very personal bad breath range then. Ask any EMT whether they'd rather respond to a domestic GSW or domestic knife.

[Lost Sheep]

I hope this post will be taken as it is given. Just a "suppose" example of the extreme.

If all passengers boarding airplanes were given a one-shot pistol (e.g. the old WWII "Liberator") which they would turn in at the end of the flight, how many airplane hijackings might take place or be prevented?

Don't take this idea too far. It is wildly unrealistic and not really representative of your typical street situation, but does give you something to think about.

Lost Sheep

[2DREZQ]

she has flat out told me that she believes crimes are more evil if commited by guns.
I agree with her. If crimes are being committed BY guns, those guns should be rounded up and smelted down!

[LubeckTech]

The basic problem is the streets are ALREADY violent and someone who is intent to harm another will do just that and employ whatever tool it takes to do so. Allowing people to carry gives them the chance to fend off an attack and in many cases when the attacker(s) realizes the victim is armed there is no attack!! If someone is harmed should it be the aggressor or the intended victim???

[Kevin Rohrer]

"Well maybe it would be a good thing to keep a revolver in my purse when I'm walking through a rough neighbourhood, but if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets!"

That's an easy response.

1. Criminals already have guns if they want them. Self-defense is not a case of Mutually-Assured Destruction. Criminals are cowardly, lazy, and cheap. They don't rob those they feel will defend themselves or create a situation where they (the criminals) may get hurt, killed, or captured.

2. This argument was tried by the anti-gunners in Florida, which was one of the first states to allow both concealed and open carry. Robbers stopped going after Florida residents and moved on to people who were tourists, as they were much less likely to be armed.

3. And as to the argument that arming civilians will increase gun violence, almost all states now have CCW laws, and CCWers have acted maturel. Violent crimes against people have gone down, because people are no longer soft targets. Criminals have moved from robbing people to other forms of theft.

[X-Rap]

One thing to note is that in most of Sweden we don't have as much robberies and such as in some parts of the US, and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise. Because the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys.

So it is common in Sweden for citizens to just relinquish their possessions on demand?
If that condition is rampant I suggest a change in attitude as well as tactics by the people en mass. Even if it isn't rampant yet the fact that there is this conditioning in the populous lends itself to defenseless violence if the conditions change either economic or social.
I say the innocent need to adjust before the criminal.
If there is a Sheep/Wolf analogy you have described it in Sweden.

[1911Tuner]

Many Americans have always carried guns. They just didn't admit to it until recently. The belief that no (otherwise) law abiding, peacefully disposed citizen ever carried a concealed handgun for personal protection in the days before the states passed "Shall Issue" laws is interesting and actually rather naive.

[robhof]

Criminal elements look for the easiest targets and an armed citizen isn't an easy target. I've open carried in some very dangerous places and felt safe and confortable that the bad elements would seek out other targets.

[henschman]

Certainly a person may choose not to carry a gun out of fear of escalating the situation to a more violent one... but the option should be with the individual, based on his own circumstances and his own judgment. After all, it is his life in the balance. It is not something that should be broadly prohibited to everyone.

[1911Tuner]

Certainly a person may choose not to carry a gun out of fear of escalating the situation to a more violent one... but the option should be with the individual, based on his own circumstances and his own judgment. After all, it is his life in the balance. It is not something that should be broadly prohibited to everyone.

This.

Do you really want to bet your life on receiving mercy from someone who is very likely merciless? Your choice, of course...but don't try to make that choice for anyone but yourself.

There was a time that I could stand toe-to-toe with just about anybody in my weight class and even a bit above...but that was a long time ago.

There was a time that I could do a hundred yards in less than 10 seconds...but that was a long time ago.

There was a time that I could take a pretty sound drubbing and be over it in a matter of days...but that was a long time ago. If I even survived a beat-down, I'd probably never recover from it.

I certainly don't want to escalate a confrontation to the point that shooting is the only solution...but I do want that option in case I'm left with no other acceptable choice.

[bikerdoc]

Tuner in post 30 sums up my opinion.

"Dont tread on me" is not just a political statement

[GLOOB]

Compared with plain intimidation, threat of violence, and force of numbers, armed robbery carries a bigger sentence, more public/police pressure to find the perpetrators, and a higher likelihood of being shot or ending up as a felony murder.

If you reduce the reward:risk ratio for being a criminal, then there are less criminals.

[jon_in_wv]

and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise

Is she saying GROUPS of muggers are going around victimizing people and we are supposed to believe its SAFER than the US? I don't think so.

[Byrd666]

axxxel

If I remember correctly in the article I was reading, one of the reasons for the low crime rate in Sweden had a lot to do with the "public's" Military service and history. Per the article, All persons are required to do a two year stint in the Military, and are allowed to "keep" the weapon they served with. Took the latter with a grain of salt, but, were it true, would you try and a rob a body that had knowledge and or ability to use a firearm proficiently. On a consistent basis.

The last I heard, outlaws are just that. Outlaws. If a law abiding citizen, carrying a concealed firearm, can stop a rape, murder, or aggravated robbery, what's the argument against it? Sorry, rhetorical question. Per FBI stats., and quite a few big city crime stats., in states that allow concealed carry, all crime stats are lower, by a good sized count, than when concealed carry by lawful, firearm carrying citizens were not doing so

[vamo]

If I remember correctly in the article I was reading, one of the reasons for the low crime rate in Sweden had a lot to do with the "public's" Military service and history. Per the article, All persons are required to do a two year stint in the Military, and are allowed to "keep" the weapon they served with.

believe you're thinking of switzerland, I think Sweden has a decently high rate of ownership for an European country, but is actually pretty restrictive compared to most US states.

[Lost Sheep]

believe you're thinking of switzerland, I think Sweden has a decently high rate of ownership for an European country, but is actually pretty restrictive compared to most US states.
Yes, Switzerland. But those military arms are HIGHLY controlled, as is ammunition for them. It is not likely a criminal accosting a targeted victim in a parking lot has a high likelihood of encountering an armed victim.

But the MAIN reason, I think, is the social norms in both those countries. Armed robberies and armed defense is not in the fabric of those societies to the extent that it is in the U.S.

Arming a pacifist society (and I am not using the term pejoratively by any means) or peaceful society is a lot more complex than just allowing the means of defense to be privately wielded. (Refer to my earlier, only partially fanciful post about airplanes). A LOT more complex.

It requires a sea change in the collective soul of the nation.

Lost Sheep

[GLOOB]

The problem with these scenarios is this. People are lazy. They won't lug around guns unless they have a good reason to. Just because you legalize guns doesn't mean anymore than 1% of the population will actually strap one on, on any given day.

Right to bear arms is exactly that. You can argue all day how the actual practice will bear out. But in reality it doesn't. In a relatively peaceful, ordered society, it's not worth the bother to lug something around that has less than a 0.0001% chance of being useful on any given day. Having the right is the important part... in case circumstances change.

But firearms do play a fairly significant role in home defense and B&E deterrence in the US.

[Neverwinter]

Compared with plain intimidation, threat of violence, and force of numbers, armed robbery carries a bigger sentence, more public/police pressure to find the perpetrators, and a higher likelihood of being shot or ending up as a felony murder.

If you reduce the reward:risk ratio for being a criminal, then there are less criminals.
If this were true, then capital punishment would have a meaningful effect on crime. Except that the numbers do not bear that out.

People are notoriously bad at risk perception, and depending on that is as foolish as depending of the benevolence of a mugger.

[nickn10]

If this were true, then capital punishment would have a meaningful effect on crime. Except that the numbers do not bear that out.

People are notoriously bad at risk perception, and depending on that is as foolish as depending of the benevolence of a mugger.
I'm kind of curious; Are there any statistics that indicate that the incidence of robbery/burglary has increased or diminished in the Zimmerman/Trayvon locale since that happened?

[jon_in_wv]

I don't know about B&E because sometimes guns are the target of the thief but I can say that I've never even heard of a home invasion robbery in WV. When I lived in Fullerton, CA there were 150 of them in my neighborhood. Thieves are sneaky and only care if you are home of not, ROBBERS don't like the idea of getting shot at and will target vulnerable people. They don't "get a bigger gun".

[tomrkba]

"Well maybe it would be a good thing to keep a revolver in my purse when I'm walking through a rough neighbourhood, but if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets!"

Their argument is based upon a fallacy. The criminals have "already escalated" the situation to the maximum possible by using a lethal weapon in the commission of their crime. No further escalation is possible.

The actual argument being made by the politicians (or private citizen) is that they want the government to have full control over law abiding citizens. They merely use the phrase mentioned as a means to create fear in the minds of the listeners. The intent is to evoke images of "Wild West" gunfights in the grocery store. They want you to believe that YOUR children will be shot by a well meaning person. They do not care if the crime victim lives or dies; it is the control over the LAW ABIDING people that matters. The reason is that the law abiding people VOLUNTARILY submit to government authority. Armed law abiding citizens breaks that political paradigm.


I don't know about B&E because sometimes guns are the target of the thief but I can say that I've never even heard of a home invasion robbery in WV.

20 seconds on Google will show you that home invasions do occur in West Virginia.

One example:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/72-year-old-west-virginia-man-unleashes-pistol-then-shotgun-on-home-invasion-thugs/

[Lost Sheep]

If this were true, then capital punishment would have a meaningful effect on crime. Except that the numbers do not bear that out.

People are notoriously bad at risk perception, and depending on that is as foolish as depending of the benevolence of a mugger.
Your two points are well taken.

However, the capital punishment deterrent effect is diminished to almost zero by the uncertainty of it and the delay of it. Immediacy and certainty are essential elements of deterrence.

Your mention of risk assessment is spot on. Remember also, that the citizen assessing the risk of being a victim of a crime is thinking one way. The criminal assessing the risk of a victim turning the tables on him is thinking in another way. The risk assessment sword cuts both ways.

Lost Sheep

[Lost Sheep]

Their argument is based upon a fallacy. The criminals have "already escalated" the situation to the maximum possible by using a lethal weapon in the commission of their crime. No further escalation is possible.


The original post was considering a locale where the criminal element has NOT already been using firearms.

Your point about government wanting to keep its citizenry dependent may have some traction, though. Thomas Jefferson put a fine point on it when he said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".

Lost Sheep

[230RN]

Someone beat me to quoting Cooper on returning violence, so I'll submit this essay by Marko Kloos:

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Paragraphs 4 and 5 therein seem to be especially suited to your party's question.

Terry, 230RN

[jon_in_wv]

20 seconds on Google will show you that home invasions do occur in West Virginia.

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply it never happens.

MY point since you didn't get it WASN'T that they never happen but rather I had never heard of one so its a rare occurrence. It was a major concern where I lived in CA and everyone heard about them. It doesn't happen with the same regularity here, I believe, is because much more people are armed here and they make no bones about their willingness to protect their property.

I hope that was more helpful.

[Lost Sheep]

jon_in_wv, tomrkba,

This thread started as a genuine inquiry from Sweden about the efficacy of armed civilians.

When a sincere request for our help opens a thread, it is not in keeping with the high aspirations of The High Road to bicker.

Wandering a little off-subject is understandable, and not always unproductive, but vitriol is pointless and petty. I have read a sampling of your other posts in this forum. You know better.

Actual, hard statistics making your points would be helpful, and if it really only takes 20 seconds to come up with relevant numbers (for instance, home invasions per year per household in comparable neighborhoods -inner city, farm country, suburbs, etc- it is usually the person making the assertion who has the duty to produce the statistics.

Lost Sheep

[jon_in_wv]

I'm sorry if my post wasn't up to your lofty standard. I'm glad you took to the time to let me know. I edited my earlier post to make it more "user friendly" so people with tender sensibilities won't be offended. I hope that is helpful to you and less shameful for myself.

Thanks.

Of course I'm sure you will do the same with your post. You know, where you bickered at both of us about bickering.

[thezoltar]

Violence may indeed increase but I would submit that it would increase against the bad guys. After a period of time the violence would slow considerably when the bad guys realize they may get hurt in their chosen profession.

[tomrkba]

No worries jon! Sorry to come off too strong; it was not intended. I just had a conversation with someone regarding our town and how "safe it is". They had no idea about a murder in the past year and a recent shooting between thugs from DC at a local bar. This person also had no idea that the subdivision had a high rate of car theft!

Back to Sweden:

I am calling it for what it is--gun control is about control and not crime. This applies to all countries, Sweden included. The right to defense is universal and laws that prohibit it are evil. Even England has had to back off persecuting citizens for saving themselves.

It IS fact that governments want unarmed populations (source: the history of government in the entire 20th century. Examples include: Germany 1930's and the subsequent copying of parts of that law into GCA 1968.) An Australian official just admitted their regulations were DESIGNED to be difficult for the law abiding in order to reduce gun ownership. This has been amazingly successful in DC (see Emily Miller's articles on the process, and costs, of acquiring a handgun in DC.). We know the ATF reduced the number of FFL licenses in the 90's with that intent. We also know Jefferson had a far harder line than mere suggestion regarding personal arms.

Solutions:

You must demand your natural rights!

A small minority of law abiding citizens needs to get organized and vocal. Here in Virginia, we have VCDL (vcdl.org). It is a small but effective gun rights organization that has much influence. They focus on legislators and have been instrumental in stopping awful legislation and pushing through pro-rights bills. The OP should contact them for assistance in setting up a similar organization.

[j1]

An armed society is a polite society.:)

[CommanderCrusty]

Good luck with your talk. I'm sure you'll find lots of interesting ideas and talking points here on THR. Here are a couple more to consider.

1) Things are a bit different here in the USA. Our criminals are already armed.

2) If you are likely to face a couple of unarmed thugs, you might still be justified in using deadly force (the disparity of force argument). On the other hand, it would be much easier to justify using Mace/pepper spray, or if it was all you had, a folding pocket knife (used to disable their legs or arms) or sturdy flashlight (used on the knee or elbow).

3) Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. In some states here in America, the penalty for murder and armed robbery are the same. Therefore, it is logical (in a twisted, criminal sort of way) to just go ahead and kill anyone your rob: same penalty, one less witness. So, be careful what you wish for in your home country.

[MagnumDweeb]

This is great and all, but has the OP from Sweden chimed back in. As far as I'm concerned Sweden ought to be Mars for all I know. I'm a born and bred Southerner of some three hundred plus years of ancestry (yes my family has been in Florida when it was still in the hands of the Spanish). Gun ownership on my mother's side is as natural as owning a bicycle or set of golf clubs (yet everyone seems to use their guns more). My father's side is from Long Island New York, and if it weren't for all his brothers moving to Pennsylvania I'd swear his whole side was antigun (my Dad is still anti to an extent).

Fair to say I don't have a clue how the social norms of Sweden works. What their sense of individualism comes to, what their sense of self comes to, and how they value human life. In Florida, among the my fellow white southerners (I'm Jewish and mixed with Native American, and supposedly African), whom are not in the KKK, it's perfectly alright to own guns, carry guns concealed (some are pro open carry, some are not), and use them to defend one's self against a criminal with no consequences be they either criminal or civil. And if a bad guy happens to die every now and again, well "America" won't miss them.

This isn't the norm in all of America, and to some this attitude is insane (I know because I explained it to a young Welsh woman once and she blanched and called me crazy, my fiancee's family thinks I'm nuts and they're from Massachusetts).

So where would Sweden find itself, would killing criminals be "shocking" to the moral and conscious fabric of their society. As some have said in the past, even on this website, should an act of robbery or theft result in a "death sentence." Because lets face it, guns can kill, maim, cripple, and ruin lives when in the hands of certain persons, even well-intending persons. Can Sweden's populace accept that.

Amongst my brethren (some of who are doctors, lawyers, businessmen, business owners), if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you act as a criminal then you have no right to be upset should your reward be six feet under or a life paralyzed from the neck down with your entire survival dependent on your respirator still working. I can accept that, but can the folks of Sweden accept that. Criminals have rights, after all we are told they are human beings, and to some these "Criminals" have the right to rob, rape, and murder, and suffer nothing but a life behind bars, fed three square meals a day, no pressure to pay the bills, internet access, reading materials and the free time to enjoy reading, cable television, and access to a whole host of snacks, and free medical care.

Can the folks of Sweden grasp possibly killing these "Criminals" with their guns?

[Teachu2]

I find anti-gun folks in the same boat as atheists - all their arguments evaporate in times of crisis, and they convert on one issue or the other, and often on both. They start praying for a gun...:D

What other countries do regarding gun control and the results of those efforts are interesting, but simply do not apply to the United States. The cultural differences are enormous, and are often overlooked completely in these discussions.

It's much more applicable to analyze data from within the U.S. when discussing the U.S. Has violent crime decreased in Florida since it became a right-to-carry state? What's happened in other states that have done the same? How about those that have further restricted carry rights? Those are answers that apply to the U.S., although Detroit may not have the same results as Flint, Los Angeles, or Miami.

Of course, both sides of the debate are guilty of interpreting data to suit their objectives while ignoring other relevant factors (like three-strikes laws, unemployment rates, prison early-release, and a host of others) that may affect the analysis/conclusions. One thing is for sure - outlaw guns, and gun-related crime will skyrocket.

[Skribs]

Like I've been saying for a while - the problem with antis is they want a bandaid fix to "gun violence". It's easy to make guns illegal. If there are no guns, there will be no "gun violence." The problem is it addresses only the tool, and not the violence. On the grand scheme, we don't need to disarm the bad guy. We need to arm the good guy to provide a deterrent, and provide social programs for the "bad" that will promote good behavior. It won't stop crime, but I do believe it will reduce it. Should those social programs fail, lock up the BG, and keep him locked up.

Not enough money to support the prison systems? Then get out of debt and pump money into them. This is getting a bit outside the scope of THR here, but anti-violence social programs, including victim and perpetrator education, as well as a much better prison system for repeat offenders, is a much-more-difficult to implement, but I believe would be much more successful system than "ban guns". Heck, encourage folks to buy guns, and use the tax money to support these social programs!

That's my belief on the grand scale. On the small scale, I recognize that there is one person wholly responsible for my safety: me. There are others I can call, but unless they're right there when something goes down, I am the only person that can defend myself. I want the tools to do it.

[hso]

Firearms homicide rates in Sweden are some of the lowest in the world (~.2) . The U.S. firearms homicide rate if about 20 times that. There's something culturally at work.

[jon_in_wv]

I don't know if anyone else said it but I think we are missing the obvious answer here. Sweden's neighbor, Norway, has the highest rate of personal firearms ownership in Europe, according to the UN report. We all now how crime is running rampant in Norway right? Actually the homicide rate in Norway is amongst the lowest in Europe. There doesn't seem to be a direct correlation to the number of firearms and murder rates.

[VAPOPO]

Chaiman Mao said it best. What need of sheep to own guns? Most politicians tend to see us as sheep but some of us are wolves in sheeps clothing-Criminals, and others are sheep dogs Police, Millitary and CCW. I like to think of myself as a sheep dog. I was the victim of a violent crime in my early 20's and still carry the scars and injuries 22 years later. I made it a point in life to never be a victim again.

[chhodge69]

A handgun is the best practical way to ensure you never have to place yourself at the mercy of criminals. Whether they are armed as well is not relevant. If they possess a disparity of force then they can seize control over you. A handgun gun gives you a chance to prevent that from happening. Are you willing to bet your life that all they want is your money? I'm not.

Remember - there is no social contract with criminals!

[Clean97GTI]

Chaiman Mao said it best. What need of sheep to own guns? Most politicians tend to see us as sheep but some of us are wolves in sheeps clothing-Criminals, and others are sheep dogs Police, Millitary and CCW. I like to think of myself as a sheep dog. I was the victim of a violent crime in my early 20's and still carry the scars and injuries 22 years later. I made it a point in life to never be a victim again.

politicians know darn well that gun law is a polarizing issue more useful for getting votes rather than stopping crime.

One simple look at the statistics shows us that when you look at crimes amongst non hispanic whites alone, the murder rate drops in half (roughly)
This tells me that poverty has a much greater effect on crime than guns. Until we are willing to address the poverty issue in this country and stop our damaging drug war, things will not change.

That being said, i favor an inexpensive knife over a gun these days and haven't packed a concealed firearm in nearly five years. I may have grown more liberal since posting here actively but i still don't trust the sh***y criminal types and haven't sold any of my cool guns.

[Lost Sheep]

This is great and all, but has the OP from Sweden chimed back in. As far as I'm concerned Sweden ought to be Mars for all I know. I'm a born and bred Southerner of some three hundred plus years of ancestry (yes my family has been in Florida when it was still in the hands of the Spanish). Gun ownership on my mother's side is as natural as owning a bicycle or set of golf clubs (yet everyone seems to use their guns more). My father's side is from Long Island New York, and if it weren't for all his brothers moving to Pennsylvania I'd swear his whole side was antigun (my Dad is still anti to an extent).

Fair to say I don't have a clue how the social norms of Sweden works. What their sense of individualism comes to, what their sense of self comes to, and how they value human life. In Florida, among the my fellow white southerners (I'm Jewish and mixed with Native American, and supposedly African), whom are not in the KKK, it's perfectly alright to own guns, carry guns concealed (some are pro open carry, some are not), and use them to defend one's self against a criminal with no consequences be they either criminal or civil. And if a bad guy happens to die every now and again, well "America" won't miss them.

This isn't the norm in all of America, and to some this attitude is insane (I know because I explained it to a young Welsh woman once and she blanched and called me crazy, my fiancee's family thinks I'm nuts and they're from Massachusetts).

So where would Sweden find itself, would killing criminals be "shocking" to the moral and conscious fabric of their society. As some have said in the past, even on this website, should an act of robbery or theft result in a "death sentence." Because lets face it, guns can kill, maim, cripple, and ruin lives when in the hands of certain persons, even well-intending persons. Can Sweden's populace accept that.

Amongst my brethren (some of who are doctors, lawyers, businessmen, business owners), if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you act as a criminal then you have no right to be upset should your reward be six feet under or a life paralyzed from the neck down with your entire survival dependent on your respirator still working. I can accept that, but can the folks of Sweden accept that. Criminals have rights, after all we are told they are human beings, and to some these "Criminals" have the right to rob, rape, and murder, and suffer nothing but a life behind bars, fed three square meals a day, no pressure to pay the bills, internet access, reading materials and the free time to enjoy reading, cable television, and access to a whole host of snacks, and free medical care.

Can the folks of Sweden grasp possibly killing these "Criminals" with their guns?
Without being judgemental about another, completely different society's norms, I think the answer is, "no", as evidenced by Sweden's neighbor, Norway's treatment of Anders Behring Breivik.

Scandinavian society has made a moral judgement. Their conclusion it different from the USA, even different from Massachusetts. we can understand their attitude no more than they can understand ours. I cannot pass judgment for them any more than I can accept judgement from them.

The differences in our societies are on more fronts than just firearms ownership, criminal justice or the rights of the individual and how they balance against the individual's responsibility to society.

The grand scheme of things in human societal evolution may yield a definitive answer some day. Maybe. Maybe both societal norms are functional (as opposed to dysfunctional).

Lost Sheep