On Europe

[kespernorth]

Now, I must admit I'm a big fan of Europe.

But this whole self-defense thing...

If a burglar breaks into my home, and I am not permitted to thrash him within an inch of his life for daring to tread upon my sacrosanct territory, I shall be very cross.

I am not psychologically capable of standing by and letting someone try to kill me or my loved ones, or perpetrate other such violent crimes, if I know it's going on. It's just not going to happen.

It is not right to send someone to jail for trying to defend themselves, their home, or their loved ones. I don't see how one is supposed to stand blithely by and just let it happen.

I do not understand what made the Europeans -- the British especially -- have such an ass-backwards ideas about self-defense. "Oh, sure, Mister Serial Killer, you're welcome to castrate me and choke me with my own testicles while I wait for the police to arrive; after all, it simply wouldn't be sporting if I defended myself! Why, I should go to jail for even thinking about it! Oh, dear, terribly sorry, did you break a nail? Here, let me get a file for that for you; can I lick your boots while I'm at it? I'm sure we'll have plenty of time, the police are unionized and probably having a nice cup of coffee..."

What the fuck do they expect? That offering your would-be killer a nice cup of tea will solve everything? For fuck's sake, people.

Comments

[hirtzenocker.livejournal.com]

i say we make handheld projectile weapons (ie-guns) universally illegal and go back to the timehonoured method of dueling with swords. but wait! you say. i don't know how to use a sword!

that's exactly my point. 99.9% of the earth's population would have to learn a skill, or become partial to some other weapon that requires some bit of skill or training. it's much harder to "accidently" kill instead of merely injure with blade or blunt weapons, and there seems to be more respect for the handling of such than for the handling of guns. i once scared off a would-be burgler by merely unsheathing my sword and dropping into stance. had i a gun, he'd be dead and i'd be doing time. you don't get into trouble (legal, karmic, or otherwise) by tapping a fear ingrained from earliest recorded history.

[tepes.livejournal.com]

It's attitudes like this (legislate everything! Doesn't matter if it's enforceable let alone in violation of constitutional rights!) and their accompanying flawed arguments that make me weep for the future of America.

You say handheld projectile weapons, this includes bows, crossbows, and spears, you understand? Those things are basically ways of getting a blade into your opponent, the goal of the dueling you propose, and so functionally identical to your sword. If we say only blunt handheld projectiles, then do we outlaw marbles for slingshots and good, old-fashioned fist-sized rocks? Where do we stop?

You also say that 99.9% of the earth's population would have to learn a skill, and I have to respond with a hearty WTF? The 99.9% statistic was so much crap, but, disregarding it, how much skill does it take to swing a stick? Hominids have done that for millions of years. They even stepped it up by using the shoulder bone of an antelope (that ball joint makes a frigging great skullcracker!). As to the "dueling" that you mention, it was, much like boxing, an instituted thing. The essence of it was to avoid the "heat of the moment" and make death-dealing a serious thing, which it should be. But it was also entertainment! Real life doesn't follow rules, as any victim of a violent crime will tell you.

Jesus Christ, what makes you think that a burglar or a rapist will challenge you to trial of arms?

Why not delegislate instead, hmm? Make everything legal and what you're strong enough to hold, you get to keep? It's as legitimate as what you propose, and has the precedent of nearly a billion years of success here on earth!

As to it being much harder to "accidently"(sic) kill instead of merely injure with blade or blunt weapons, you do understand that a puncture wound is a puncture regardless of delivery methods? That an untended gut wound will get septic whether you got it from a bacteria-infested kitchen knife or a solvent-cleaned slug? That trauma surgeons would rather see small-caliber arms wounds than lacerations because they, in fact, are less likely to kill because bleeding is more easily stopped?

As to your contention as to whether there seems to be more respect for the handling of such than for the handling of guns, well, of course there is! People see blades every single day--they're not afraid of them! People hardly ever see firearms except on television, even more rarely do they handle them. In this case, unfamiliarity breeds contempt because you only hear the bad stories about firearms, not the fact that more than 2.5 million times a year, firearms are used by private individuals to prevent crime. Too, most people have been cut once or twice, and, like the lesson of playing with fire, have learned safe procedures to handle blades. Knives are tools--sometimes of self defense--and people handle them that way. Guns are the self-defense equivalent of powertools and too many people don't wear their safety glasses or stand in puddles when they plug them in.

[hirtzenocker.livejournal.com]

1)spears, bows, and crossbows are for hunting and war, not for daily self-defence. such things are bulky and awkward for daily use, and not practical.
2)guns require no skill or practice whatsoever to kill large numbers of people, as we see everyday. it takes more skill, effort, and intent to kill someone with a blade or blunt object. granted, it's easier to simply injure, but that supports the "hot stove" theory of learning, and also brings violence to an extremely personal level.
quote:"i once worked with a guy who bragged that he always wore a gun. i said,'so? i always carry two knives.' his face went white, and he said 'oh man, i could never stick a guy, i'm not that brave.'

the point here? people don't like having to see the consequences of their actions. guns make it easier to psychologically distance oneself from the blood and gore and trauma of dead human.
skill with blade or blunt weapons is what can keep an armed opponent from killing you or others, whereas a person with a gun can just fire away. learn the skills, and learn the attitude of defense. learn that consequences are unavoidable, and learn some subtlety. if you truly want to mess someone up, there are much more rewarding ways than taking their lives and throwing away your own humanity.
i suggested swords because of the history, the connotations imprinted on the collective psyche of humanity, and because it WOULD require the learning of a skill, especially if one really wants to kill. need i reiterate once more the difference between swing a sword and a stick? a weapon in the hands of an untrained and frightened person is always dangerous, but i'd worry abou the guy with the gun first. all he has to do is twitch, and people can die.
so, one more time, how many people do YOU know that are confident and competently skilled in the use of blades for self-defence?

3)burglers and rapists...may i illustrate with my own experiences as a woman? thank you, you're too kind.
burgler: i see a gun in the back of his pants, tucked in. i unsheath sword. he hears the noise, sees the blade, and runs away. he even dropped the stuff he was pawing through! had he not run, i was fully prepared to use my skills to drive away or apprehend the man without killing ANY ONE.
rapists:would-be rapists run from girls who hold knives to their throats, did you know that? big guy runs from girl in miniskirt walking alone in seattle at 3 am. hmmm......
4)duels
would you prefer that people shoot up each others' friends and family when they're pissed, or effectively jump in the ring and beat each other up for awhile? they'd have and audience betting on sides anyway, and this way they can have an "honorable" outlet for their aggressions, etc, etc. duh! of course dueling is instituted and entertainment. so were public executions. a harsh way to live, but much more respect for the law and living. not that the law is always right or ethical, but that's a whole nother arguement.
dueling is not attatched to self-defence, except that sanctioned and regulated, it could cut down on the need for self-defence. do you understand the formal process of challenge and acceptance? if not, do some research.
5)wounds- like you said,a gut wound will go septic regardless. such is the nature of gut wounds. however, bullet holes are, by nature, harder to clean out and keep clean than your basic lacerations. bullet-holes may lose less blood, but they have this amazing tendency towards minute shrapnel and subsequent infection.
and what the hell does wounding have to do with skill levels of usage? stay on topic, please. of course i realize that punctures are such regardless. do you realize that it's rather more difficult to "accidentally" puncture someone with a blade than with a gun? less often deadly, too.

i don't expect anyone to change their attitude about their godgiven right to be narrowminded. we all are from someone else's perspective. but i do ask that you all think about how the right to bear arms does not specify which arms. i personally feel that guns are the tool of cowardice and irresponsibility, and that is my right to feel. at least i have skills and experiences to back my beliefs.

[hirtzenocker.livejournal.com]

ps- come on, say it with me...f-a-s-c-e-t-i-o-u-s

not every comment is meant at full face value, and it's those of you with no sense of interpretation who get all pissy and pick fights. grow up, get some social skills, and chill out. humans, oy vey!