Raid

[TheoK]

I have carried a knife before in my purse for my own defense and I have carried a handgun before for the same reason.

I'm not a deranged lunatic and I certainly was not going around looking for trouble, but I did feel the need to have the means to defend myself when I drove alone across the country even though I have studied karate.

You can't discuss this in a serious way with most Europeans and obviously not with many Australians either. They have been brainwashed with antigun propaganda and belief in Big Brother for decades.

And you're discussing it "seriously"? Anyone who doesn't agree with your delusions is "brainwashed" or a "communist".

See, Lit, you and your friend Depressed Mode here show again and again why weapons need to be controlled. I wouldn't have a problem with Dawg or Callaway carrying a gun, but you lack their common sense. You'd be a danger to yourself and your surroundings.

That it at all can cross your mind that someone can ever be considered to be a "danger" to themselves shows what you really think about personal freedom. I have all rights in the world to drink or drug myself to death, drive a car without a seatbelt or a motorcycle without a helmet, climb a mountain without any safety equipment, swim in an ocean full of sharks or put my cock in a mixer for that matter. That's not up to some cunt like you or any self-appointed, self-righteous bureaucrat to decide.

If you really believe in your "all you need is love" and gun restriction bullshit, leave that safe village you live in and move 10 kilometres to the northwest. You say we don't need any guns for our protection in Sweden, so prove it. Then you'll also be surrounded by your beloved Muslim friends.

[TheoK]

Meh I'm not worried about these gun laws here, I'm creative and resourceful enough to build my own primitive weapons whenever it's necessary to do so.

Anyway I believe guns shouldn't be banned, but instead a professional behavioral and firearms training program, psychological assessment and training to recognize legitimate hostile targets and use appropriate responses, and alternative defensive training (such as kick boxing, karate, etc) should be prerequisites for gun ownership. It's not the gun that's the real problem, it's the psychology of the person who's wields or owns it. If they're trained sufficiently to understand their weapon, how to disarm and secure it during non-use, have the right attitude using it, know alternative means to subdue a unarmed or knife armed opponent with non-lethal force, and ways to immobilize a target without lethal consequences with their firearm; then incidents of at least accidental or excessive force use fatalities by firearms should be reduced. Consider it like a basic form of police training. Sounds like a lot to obtain a weapon, but if you want to defend yourself, it would be worth learning all those things as well as owing a gun I'd think. Also the industry should strongly market and encourage the purchasing and usage of rubber bullets for home defense, as rubber bullets are very effective for subduing a person in debilitating pain, with a reduced chance of it turning into a fatality.

How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.

To obtain a one hand gun legally in Sweden, you have to go to a shooting club - if they let you in at all; a net buddy of mine with a perfectly clean record has waited for two years to be "accepted" in his local shooting club, and that's in the 4th largest city in Sweden - be a member for at least one year, often two years, and shoot the "gold series" in target shooting. During this time you're constantly being fed with antigun propaganda.

Legal gun owners in Sweden, who actually understand that the gun law is totally sick, don't even dare to reveal their real identities on an internet gun discussion board, because that might be enough to make them lose their licenses.

So all people that are heard of in the Swedish gun "debate" are the ones sucking Big Brother's cock. If they ever let a pro-gunner say anything, they do the same as our passive-aggressive Finnish ostrich here does to us: they ridicule and insult them. The same goes for people who are against immigration or anything else that Big Brother has decided is PC, for that matter.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.

Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye appearance and movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.

Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.

[TheoK]

You're right that it'd be useful, but everything compulsory is totally against my principles.

['andersom']

How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.

Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.

Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.

Well, the obvious solution will of course be walking around with a handgun in one hand, and a knife in the other. Always the gun in hand in time.

* imagines what it would look like in a supermarket *

I can see how owning a knife or a handgun could give a sense of safety when you are in a car, locked. Because you would have time to grab it. In other situations I think accidents are bound to happen. And I don't want to walk in a dark alley with a pistol in my hand in my pocket, to be able to react on every stranger I meet. Chance that I will hit someone out of a fear reaction when it was not necessary would be too big. Chance to get seriously hurt with my own weapon too.
I'll just keep carrying my keys as a boxing device in my hands. Ready to maim visibly someone who will attack me, but even more, ready to smash in a window if that happens. Because people will call cops sooner when their property gets damaged than when they hear a woman scream. Making a lot of noise is good anyway. And the sound of breaking glass will help.

[TheoK]

How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.

Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.

Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.

Well, the obvious solution will of course be walking around with a handgun in one hand, and a knife in the other. Always the gun in hand in time.

* imagines what it would look like in a supermarket *

I can see how owning a knife or a handgun could give a sense of safety when you are in a car, locked. Because you would have time to grab it. In other situations I think accidents are bound to happen. And I don't want to walk in a dark alley with a pistol in my hand in my pocket, to be able to react on every stranger I meet. Chance that I will hit someone out of a fear reaction when it was not necessary would be too big. Chance to get seriously hurt with my own weapon too.
I'll just keep carrying my keys as a boxing device in my hands. Ready to maim visibly someone who will attack me, but even more, ready to smash in a window if that happens. Because people will call cops sooner when their property gets damaged than when they hear a woman scream. Making a lot of noise is good anyway. And the sound of breaking glass will help.

You miss two points here, like most people:

1. The bad guys will always have guns anyway. They have them in countries where guns are totally banned and the minimum punishment for possession is several years. In Sweden it's a few months.

2. Governments don't make gun laws to save their citizens' lives or health. They make them to make sure that the citizens won't be able to resist state oppression or make a successful uprising. Because if they really cared about human lives and health, they would start with banning and restricting a lots of other things, that kill much, much more people, but they don't.

For instance: there are like 10 times more people killed by cars than guns in Sweden (if you don't count suicides; in fact a law-abiding Swede shoots himself every day on average). Yet you have never heard anyone say that you'd need a driver's license to buy a car or even that you'd be an adult to buy one. Why? Because you'd never get a chance to kill some politician with a car if not accidentally.

That's the cynical truth behind "gun control".

[odeon]

[TheoK]

So when will you move to Angered or Bergsjön or Biskopsgården, these wonderful safe and enriched enclaves?

[TheoK]

And look here, odeon: 25 of your beloved enrichers attacked a girl in Södertälje - again - but the investigation is shut down, despite the fact that she recognizes several of them and also has several witnesses, namely the Swedish men who helped her against the foreign subhumans: http://lt.se/nyheter/1.69787

If you move to one of the ghettos I proposed maybe some similarily enriching thing might happen to you or your loved ones.

['andersom']

How would physically handicapped people and old people be able to learn kick boxing or karate? And, like Depressed Mode, pointed out, it's nothing magic with karate. Most people can never become Bruce Lee, and ever he would have been helpless against a person with a firearm.

Well the idea is that, if you're dealing with a enraged unarmed, iron knuckled or knife armed attacker or a group of attackers who jump you before grabbing your gun out (ambush attack), you should know unarmed combat to free yourself and then if necessary, use your firearm. In case of an armed attacker, you'd try to read into their psychology (like facial expression, posture, level of sweat on their forehead, eye movement, coherence of their speech, etc) and anticipate their next move, attempt to calm the situation down and if that's failing or there's no time, try to shoot them if you know they're about to fire. You see what I'm getting at? You have to anticipate a situation where something happens too fast for you to grab your gun to respond. I suppose you could exclude unarmed combat training for those unable to do it, but it'll be difficult using your gun if your attacker sneaks up behind you, and has you knocked on the floor with their gun on your head before you can grab yours.

Training in the skills I suggest are useful not only to test your ability and competence to appropriately use and handle a firearm, but to properly handle complex situations that are life or death decisions with a few seconds to respond, and do so in a way that minimizes excessive force. Even if you do this kind of training out of official channels and illegally own a firearm, it's still a good idea to consider such training if applicable.

Well, the obvious solution will of course be walking around with a handgun in one hand, and a knife in the other. Always the gun in hand in time.

* imagines what it would look like in a supermarket *

I can see how owning a knife or a handgun could give a sense of safety when you are in a car, locked. Because you would have time to grab it. In other situations I think accidents are bound to happen. And I don't want to walk in a dark alley with a pistol in my hand in my pocket, to be able to react on every stranger I meet. Chance that I will hit someone out of a fear reaction when it was not necessary would be too big. Chance to get seriously hurt with my own weapon too.
I'll just keep carrying my keys as a boxing device in my hands. Ready to maim visibly someone who will attack me, but even more, ready to smash in a window if that happens. Because people will call cops sooner when their property gets damaged than when they hear a woman scream. Making a lot of noise is good anyway. And the sound of breaking glass will help.

You miss two points here, like most people:

1. The bad guys will always have guns anyway. They have them in countries where guns are totally banned and the minimum punishment for possession is several years. In Sweden it's a few months.

2. Governments don't make gun laws to save their citizens' lives or health. They make them to make sure that the citizens won't be able to resist state oppression or make a successful uprising. Because if they really cared about human lives and health, they would start with banning and restricting a lots of other things, that kill much, much more people, but they don't.

For instance: there are like 10 times more people killed by cars than guns in Sweden (if you don't count suicides; in fact a law-abiding Swede shoots himself every day on average). Yet you have never heard anyone say that you'd need a driver's license to buy a car or even that you'd be an adult to buy one. Why? Because you'd never get a chance to kill some politician with a car if not accidentally.

That's the cynical truth behind "gun control".

I miss the whole being at gunpoint. Yes.
Of course, bad guys, and girls will have access to guns. And they will not hesitate to use them if needed according to them. They will have better guns than I will have, they will have better skills with them than I will have.

I can chose being terrified of a possible gun in the pocket of every gloomy looking man or woman, and 'protect' myself by becoming one of 'them'. Thus making it more pressing for the bad boys and girls to use their guns. Or I can choose not to get involved in that spiral of weaponry. And be myself.

And yes, I know I'm a lucky girl. Never raped, only assaulted once. I know I now live in a very safe area. But I also know most rape happens by people you trust. Most beating up too. What will a gun do against that. Do you really expect me to live at gunpoint 24/7 because of my safety?

Don't think so.

 I don't know what I would do if I lived in a country where gun possession is the rule in stead of the exception. No idea. Maybe I would have something with me in the car if I had to drive through dangerous places. But I do not live in a country where guns are the rule. And the bad guys and gals here know that. So they won't use their guns as soon as they would somewhere else.

[TheoK]

I miss the whole being at gunpoint. Yes.
Of course, bad guys, and girls will have access to guns. And they will not hesitate to use them if needed according to them. They will have better guns than I will have, they will have better skills with them than I will have.

With free guns, how could the criminals possibly have better guns or skills than the law-abiding? The average criminal is a pretty bad shot, both in Europe and America, but s/he's of course nevertheless very dangerous.

I can chose being terrified of a possible gun in the pocket of every gloomy looking man or woman, and 'protect' myself by becoming one of 'them'. Thus making it more pressing for the bad boys and girls to use their guns. Or I can choose not to get involved in that spiral of weaponry. And be myself.

That's an invitation to getting attacked and a capitulation to the criminals. Did anyone ever fire a nuclear weapon during the cold war? No.

And yes, I know I'm a lucky girl. Never raped, only assaulted once. I know I now live in a very safe area. But I also know most rape happens by people you trust. Most beating up too. What will a gun do against that. Do you really expect me to live at gunpoint 24/7 because of my safety?

Don't think so.

It's no more "weird" to be constantly armed than constantly wearing your purse or wallet or mobile phone, even if the pacifists want you to believe otherwise.

I don't know what I would do if I lived in a country where gun possession is the rule in stead of the exception. No idea. Maybe I would have something with me in the car if I had to drive through dangerous places. But I do not live in a country where guns are the rule. And the bad guys and gals here know that. So they won't use their guns as soon as they would somewhere else.

Pim Fortuyn?

['andersom']

Would Pim Fortuyn with a gun have been able to stop the Asperger Animal Activist with a gun, from killing him?

Don't think so.

He did need more protection. Yes I will grant that. But him being armed would not have changed a thing.

The murderer was obsessed by killing Pim Fortuyn. And Pim walking with a gun in his hand, set to shoot, would not have stopped Volkert vd G.

[TheoK]

Would Pim Fortuyn with a gun have been able to stop the Asperger Animal Activist with a gun, from killing him?

Don't think so.

He did need more protection. Yes I will grant that. But him being armed would not have changed a thing.

The murderer was obsessed by killing Pim Fortuyn. And Pim walking with a gun in his hand, set to shoot, would not have stopped Volkert vd G.

Why do you focus on the fact that the murderer was an animal activist, when the true resaon for killing Fortuyn was that he didn't tolerate the Islamization of your country and whole of Europe? Islam is a greater threat to the Netherlands, Europe and the whole planet than all guns in the world.

What you are saying is: "It's better to be 100% sure not to have a chance of defending yourself than having at least a 1% or 0.5% chance".

['andersom']

Would Pim Fortuyn with a gun have been able to stop the Asperger Animal Activist with a gun, from killing him?

Don't think so.

He did need more protection. Yes I will grant that. But him being armed would not have changed a thing.

The murderer was obsessed by killing Pim Fortuyn. And Pim walking with a gun in his hand, set to shoot, would not have stopped Volkert vd G.

Why do you focus on the fact that the murderer was an animal activist, when the true resaon for killing Fortuyn was that he didn't tolerate the Islamization of your country and whole of Europe? Islam is a greater threat to the Netherlands, Europe and the whole planet than all guns in the world.

What you are saying is: "It's better to be 100% sure not to have a chance of defending yourself than having at least a 1% or 0.5% chance".

No, not saying he did not need protection. That he did need. And he did not have it enough.

And Volkert did kill him because of animal activist reasons.
Not fair to blame islamic people for this murder.

If guns were common here, I think a lot of innocent muslims might have been killed as retribution for Pim Fortuyn being killed by an animal rights activist.
Glad guns are not common here.

[TheoK]

No, not saying he did not need protection. That he did need. And he did not have it enough.

Yes, a gun is of course totally useless for protection...

And Volkert did kill him because of animal activist reasons.
Not fair to blame islamic people for this murder.

"He was assassinated during the 2002 Dutch national election campaign by militant animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf, who claimed in court he had murdered Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" in seeking political power."

Pim Fortuyn

Pwned.

If guns were common here, I think a lot of innocent muslims might have been killed as retribution for Pim Fortuyn being killed by an animal rights activist.

Oh, how sad if some Muslims would have gotten what they deserved been killed just for a Muslim lover killing a Dutch standing up for freedom of speech...