Do you worry about being alone?

Post Reply New Topic

^^ A victim of a crime in Europe typically doesn't even know they've been victimized until they realize their wallet is missing, or the laptop is gone from the back seat of the car. There is crime in Europe, but by and large it is non-violent. Crooks take when they want without hurting the victim.

In the US, the crime is very different. They will stab you from the back and then take your wallet while you lie on the ground bleeding to death. Or they will pull a gun on you because they want your leather jacket. And then when you hand it to them, they may shoot you anyway just for the hell of it.

Certain areas of certain large cities in the US are very violent. No it isn't really all that bad everywhere in the US, but it can be that bad in some areas. US is a HUGE place. There are many cultural differences between the different parts of the country, and the types of crimes are different also. Violent crime is almost unheard of in my area. But go 40 miles south to Tacoma and you pretty much aren't able to walk through some areas without getting picked out as a victim. Who are you going to "fight off"? Ten teens all armed with guns? Suuuure.

Is it fair to say that Bowling for Columbine is an accurate portrayal of gun culture in the USA then?

I don't live in the US but I definitely think pepper spray or taser(needs to be powerful enough) would be enough to defend yourself. You could also get those cool looking sword canes lol. (probably illegal)

You clearly haven't been to eastern europe.

I have been there. I was in Yugoslavia during the war there.

In the US, "Europe" refers to western Europe (everything west of the old Iron Curtain really). When we are referring to Eastern Europe, we typically say "Eastern Europe". Almost as if the two are completely separate areas. Yes technically it is all the continent of Europe, but that's not what Europe means to an American.

This is a fair question. The answer is that it is not. The simplest example regarding your "allowed" reference:

Packing heat is allowed in the US. Packing heat is not allowed in Japan.
Crime rates for murder, armed robbery, etc are MUCH higher in the US. Crime rates for these crimes are drastically lower in Japan.
This is such a huge difference that a shooting in Japan will make headline news across the country. In the US, the (shooting) story is likely not even to make it into the local rag.

If you feel that is in error, please provide the source you are using for your statement and or define "crime rate". Otherwise, beware of statistics ans sweeping statements -- they can be used to lead you astray just to prove some author's point or make a story more interesting (they want to sell copy). And there are other concerns with newbie gun ownership such as leaving it out, leaving it insufficiently secured around family/kids, putting it under your pillow and shooting yourself, killing someone else without sufficient reason (goodbye to your life too then!) or having it used against you when you find you don't have the nerve to actually kill someone.

Guns aren't a bad idea for everyone; I am NOT anti-gun, but offering one as the solution to this particular issue is just asking for trouble when there are so many other solutions.

^ It is not so simple though. Mexico has one of the strictest gun control laws. (Merely possessing amunition can get you in trouble down there.) So does Jamaica. Both countries are so ripe with gun violence. The situation in Mexico borders on a civil war!

There are countries with more guns than the US: Finland and Switzerland. There's no violence there.

Handgun ownership has been banned in Washington DC for decades, until just a little while ago. And yet during that time the DC was the murder capital of the US. Other cities with strict gun control laws: Chicago, NY and LA. Vermont citizens can carry guns without having to obtain a permit and yet there's no violence there. Etc...

Substance abuse, poor education and poor living conditions breed violent crime. If they didn't have guns, they'd use knives. If we banned knives, they'd sharpen some screwdrivers. (The most favorite weapon of Hell's Angels is not a gun or a knife but a hammer. That's because hammers are legal to carry.) Most of the people slaughtered in Rwanda were killed by machetes, not AK-47s.

I could go on forever. The point is this: people are violent. Guns are just tools.

Wow, real nice. Okay, kid.
<-- Slowly removes gloves



Criminals here in the US don't run around the streets with high powered rifles, schoolkid!! !! This isn't GTA IV-ville. Criminals here carry handguns and there are a LOT of them (criminals AND handguns, that is).



They possess very little power with a bullet lodged in them. But let's give you this for the moment, for the sake of your ridiculous "argument on dog invincibility". Dogs have on red capes like superman and are indestructable. Given.

You have to understand that an animal still needs to recognize a threat in order to react to it. The dog sees a gun and doesn't realize what it is. It will not defend you like it will if a criminal is punching you in the gut. If you command the dog to attack (assuming your dog will do this (which takes some training)) you will be shot and the dog will be startled sh*tless by the gunshot. Even BEARS run from gunshots (or are dogs stronger than bears in your world too?).

Having the dog just makes it more likely that you will not be targeted in the first place. THIS is why the OP should consider a dog as a solution (which is the point of this thread). You are encouraging readers to have their dogs attack as a solution to an armed conflict in a country and culture that you have zero experience with. This is a dangerous position that could result in harm to someone here on this board. This is my beef with your position.

FOR THE RECORD TO ALL READERS:
(RIFLE <>) HANDGUN <> DOG. Period. Do not think otherwise. Dogs are a great crime deterrent and loyal companions, but they are not invincible. Please don't get your best friend and/or yourself killed over your stupid wallet/purse!! !! !! !! ! PLEASE!! !! !! !! !! !! !

<-- Picks up gloves. Licks paw. Smooths fur.

EDIT: This symbol "<>" means "is not equal to".

Last edited by ViperaAspis on 02 Oct 2009, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A good and completely valid point. However, I would put to you that my assertion still stands on these grounds:

All I need to do is disprove the assertion that crime rate is down where guns are allowed. I can show that this is not true. Whether the Swiss have a higher or lower rate is not relevant to this point; however, if it were somehow relevant, there are still no nations that are as low as Japan (unless we define "crime rate" more specifically (for example, "shooting deaths")). This is, of course, per capita -- but you are arguing per capita when you say Finland has "more guns" than the US. What you mean is they don't have a larger number of physical, individual guns, but a higher gun ownership per person, right?

<whew> It's nice to discuss something rational .

What about Canada? According to Michael Moore, they have plenty of guns over there and only had 97 gun-related fatalities. America had something in the region of 11,000.

Very good description of my dog, lol. But I'm still extremely unlikely to be attacked while walking along with a pit bull. However friendly she may be to kids or random people who stop and pet her, that doesn't mean that she wouldn't get plenty pissed at anybody who tried to hurt me.
Pits are also somewhat known to survive being shot in the head.. depends on what they're shot with obviously, but if a dog is coming at you, getting the right angle for it to not be deflected off of a very thick skull gets a bit uncertain. While thugs aren't exactly known for their intelligence, they are generally known for doing whatever seems easiest. Passing by the chick with the pit bull and going for an easier target is a pretty obvious choice.

Maryland is a frickin' communist country like New Jersey, though.. is fairly difficult to get a carry permit.

If you're not comfortable with guns, though, it might not be a good idea to get one. Of course, taking the NRA gun safety and home defense courses is a decent idea for most people..
I believe that although Florida is a shall-issue state, they do require a certain level of proficiency to get a permit. (That's why Florida's carry permit is honored in so many states) Usually that can be accomplished with the basic NRA course.

That's right, good memory. It's even higher than that in the US, actually. This is further support for the idea that having guns does not make you safer. I'm not trying to come across as anti-gun, I just don't want people to read this and start buying firearms because they were told that the answer to feeling isolated is to pack heat. I'm trying to stick to the thread topic idea here in all these posts and I want the readers to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying.

Here is a breakdown of a government study on gun deaths worldwide in 1994 (the most recent I can find). This represents deaths per 100,000 people. The study was conducted by our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05

Source International Journal of Epidemiology, 1994

This also contradicts Dilbert's claims that there is no violence in Finland et al. It's just factually incorrect. Kudos to England ringing in at 0.41! I'd feel safe from gun violence there too!

Anyhow, let's try to stay on topic and remember that this isn't about gun control but about one guy's desire to feel safer and not-so-isolated during a journey he has to take.

EDIT: Added source references

Last edited by ViperaAspis on 02 Oct 2009, 7:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The Finland gun deaths are mostly suicides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

Thank you for the new, updated source. Allow me to use it against your argument

Even if we only take the Finland stat for homicides at .8, it is still top five (developing countries not withstanding, of course) and more than FIVE TIMES THE FIREARM HOMICIDE RATE OF ENGLAND. It is certainly not "violence free" as you claimed. Your facts were not accurate. By your own citation. Besides, your source is for gun homicides and suicides only, not robberies at gunpoint et. al. If you include all gun-related crime, Finland's rate can only be higher.

Having a gun will not make the OP safer on his trip. Just more likely to end up dead or in jail. I'm sticking by that.

But I think today's epiphany for me will be that gun control is a very "hot" issue, so I'm going to stay on the topic here and not get drawn into anything else. If you want to make a point that blowing your brains all over the wall is not a "violent" act (which truly seems to be what you are getting at there), go ahead. One of the other worthies present can pick up that gauntlet. Preferably in a different thread so this guy (and all reading him) can have his answer: Get a dog, not a gun.

Sorry, it happens so rarely that we get mugged by hovering guns here in sweden I didn't take that into account. In all other situations where another human is involed they (dogs) are very affected by your own response to the situation, the more nervous you get, the more watchfull they become.
For the record, my dog isn't afraid of loud noices, most Mastiffs isn't.


No I'm not (atleast it's not my intention), I'm saying that IF someone is imbecill enough to try and attack me, my dog would kill them.
And I'm not talking about dogs in general.


No, dogs aren't weapons. And again, I'm not talking about dogs in general.
Have you ever hunted bears? (Statiscly: No you haven't.) Have you any training in bearhunting? (Statiscly: No you haven't.)
This is the basic training for persuing a wounded bear:
You are placed about 20 meters, rifle in stand-by position (not on shoulder), from a bearshape with a limited scorearea, a marker signals to you to start moving towards the traget. At this point the marker is free to give the shoting signal at any point (between 20 and 10 meters). Ones he does, you have three seconds to aim and shot. If you miss, you have failed. If you're too slow you have failed. This is because a bear can easely run 10 meter in three seconds.
A mastiff can jump 2 meters in leangth from standing still in about a second, raised on their hind leggs they are about 160-190 cm tall. The weight is between 60-130 kg. They still have the "kill-mentality" (Note: This only means that in a real threating situation they will unlike some other dogs, not try to bite anything they can reach, they go for the throat from the beginning.) So unless you are getting mugged from over 5 meters away, the theif has less than three seconds (two for running and one for jumping) to aim and kill the dog if it attacks.
Yes, risk of wounds and death of the dog is high, but the death of the attacker is also almost sertain. This is the point I'm trying to make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7hHK8zTGuQ
This is a not yet fully grown mastiff (two years old) play-attacking, notice the jumps and the agillity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIuL2IhUsgs
Fearfactor, 10/10 if you see a pissed one.
(Neither of them are mine, but the second is very similar.)

This misconseption is what I'm tryining to remove. These are not dogs you "just shot" and are ridd of.

Fair enough. Then I have no beef with whatever else you are saying (even if you're being snotty because I dare to hold a different opinion). As long as you are not advocating to people that they sic their dogs on armed attackers, then we have no conflict. You're welcome to have your own opinions about your own personal canine. I hope for your dog's sake that they are never tested against any type of firearm.

P.S. The dogs in the links look like very loveable companions!