Are the Brits capable of embarrassment these days?

[UberBabs]

Seriously. With Knife Crimes on Rise, British Judge Calls for Duller Kitchen Knives

Any competent chef will tell you that a dull kitchen knife is more dangerous than a sharp kitchen knife.

[Espen Lund]

That's not what I asked you, but you told me what I wanted to know.

Had it come to that, I would have hit back, of course.

While I agree, it’s not so much that society is designed that way in the US (not sure if you were trying to imply that) as it is the desire of US citizens to have the right to protect ourselves with guns should we decide to.

No, I wasn't, although I implicitly might have done so because we are discussing USA and guns. But I should be careful to imply too much about USA as I have never been there. As to your right, if guns somehow could be used for protection only, then yes. But often it seems like guns that are kept in households are used for other than that, i.e. murder in the heat of the moment, the horrific mass shootings that we hear so much about, and other numerous examples where guns are not used for self defence. In other words, it almost seems like you are buying guns to defend against other people with guns.

I'm not even against the right to own weapons, because they can be used for sports and hunting. But it should be difficult to aquire one. And it should definitly not be a semi-automated rifle. The impression I get is that getting you hands on that in USA is too easy.

In that case why bother with fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, life boats on ships, first-aid kits, seat belts/airbags, Emergency Rooms, ambulances, fire departments, black-boxes on planes, I could go on.

Smoke alarms do not come with the same unfortunate side effects.

I was not aware of the fact that police in Norway is unarmed, but it does seem to be true. It is very weird how docile men in Europe have become since WW2. No surprise knife wielding immigrants are raping your women without consequence. I come from a country where drug lords shoot police helicopters out of the sky using military grade weapons, so I guess that's why this "no-gun" narrative has no hold on me.

What also seems to be true, is that it works pretty well in Norway. Unarmed police would probably not work so well where you are from tho. I'm also curious about the link between being docile and unarmed police, but I guess I already know the answer.

Oh, I can provide that training right here in one sentence, with a few more sentences as explanation.
long post with good points

There's a difference between being drilled at dangerous situations, and preparing yourself by reading a sentence. I would probably be scared shitless had a burglar entered my home in the middle of the night. Chances are that he just wanted my stuff, and the situation could have passed without anyone being killed. Had I had a gun, then I would have obviously feared for my life, and could have shot him as a result. I could also find real examples of isolated incidents (not that it proves anything) where "scared people" kill when there's no need to, but you also know how to use the google search function (no harshness intended although it came off bluntly).

Obviously the best thing to do is avoid confrontation altogether. Pick enough fights and you'll eventually end up in one where you lose.

But this is about self-defense. You can't passively respond to someone who is already being aggressive. Perhaps the probability of that occurring is fairly low in some places, but I can't think of any situation where I'd rather something awful happen to me or a family member just because I couldn't efficiently arm myself (i.e., carry a gun). That is to say that even if the rate of such crimes was 1/10,000,000 citizens, I still would not want that to be myself, my wife, or my kids.

Years ago when I did Karate, Sensei used to tell us that even a Black Belt is defenseless against a loaded gun pointed at your face, the point avoid confrontation rather than pursue it. Obviously there are cases where this is an advantage and training to disarm an attacker has probably helped someone do so in the past. But why rely on that when your odds of protecting yourself are higher with a more effective weapon?

Fair enough.

Police: Armed civilian took down shooter at Washington state Walmart | KIRO-TV

Happens daily.

I have already been told it happens 6849 times daily

But a sincere question to all of you. Do you believe such incidents could have gone down if gun distribution was more restricted?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Any competent chef will tell you that a dull kitchen knife is more dangerous than a sharp kitchen knife.

This man is an incompetent judge. You're expecting quite a bit from him.

In other words, it almost seems like you are buying guns to defend against other people with guns.

Those are the words. Care to guess who were the other people with guns the Framers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

YouTube

I am a citizen. You are a subject.

[Eric Schexnayder]

You know who else wanted to get rid of all the Brits, right?

George Washington, of course...

Yep, you pretty much hit on it Espen. Although the Second Amendment is in my opinion somewhat outdated because most people today do not share the same fear of federalism that gave birth to the bulk of rights.

Read The Federalist Papers sometime. Puts a lot of our laws into context.

I found it interesting that the video did not mention Alexander Hamilton, since he pretty much was THE Federalist.

[franklie]

I'm not even against the right to own weapons, because they can be used for sports and hunting. But it should be difficult to aquire one. And it should definitly not be a semi-automated rifle. The impression I get is that getting you hands on that in USA is too easy.

Epsen, I bolded a phrase in your response. What does the phrase semi-automated rifle mean to you? For many people is doesn't mean what they think it to mean.

Perhaps this explanation from Wikipedia might help educate you. Semi-automatic rifle - Wikipedia

In light of that definition, does your opinion change slightly?

[Scaldrew]

"British Judge calls for the abolition of objects with mass."

That's really what it comes down to. Did prohibition work? Does forced abstinence work? You can't give people obvious power or control, physically, and then expect them to relinquish it voluntarily. Well, then it has to be controlled, I hear you think. What better way to enact complete control than by enabling responsible adults to willingly take up the power in the knowledge that they need to make the best of it lest it be taken away forever? Most US citizens with guns understand this and are willing to go the distance.

But in fairness, believing that criminals will just forego the obvious advantage because it's illegal or because, well, they wouldn't need the guns since no EU citizen actually carries a gun is absurd. That would, in fact, be a reason to have a gun yourself. No one else has a gun which immediately makes you dominant in any situation. Not so when you're never sure if your victim is or is not carrying.

I don't want to dogpile on Mr. Lund, though. He seems to be making progress.

[Espen Lund]

Epsen, I bolded a phrase in your response. What does the phrase semi-automated rifle mean to you? For many people is doesn't mean what they think it to mean.

Perhaps this explanation from Wikipedia might help educate you. Semi-automatic rifle - Wikipedia

In light of that definition, does your opinion change slightly?

I was actually aware of the difference as I used an AG3 regularly while I was in the military. But I made that statement while believing the right to carry guns was based on the defence of your own familiy, in which case I do not see the need for a semi automated rifle, as a gun is 1000x more practical to carry with you at all times. Now watching the video shared by Rippetoe, there seem that there are other reasons as well.

[Mark Rippetoe]

This may be a little too much for some of you:

What's Wrong With Britain? | Trending

[Jburke]

…

Read The Federalist Papers sometime. Puts a lot of our laws into context.

I found it interesting that the video did not mention Alexander Hamilton, since he pretty much was THE Federalist.

Hamilton remained, more or less, true to the Federalism he espoused in those polemics but the other (less showy but with as powerful a mind) Federalist is Madison who rightly has the mantle of "Father of the Constitution." Unfortunately, as all Democrats (the party apparats) eventually do, he turned his coat and helped to lay the grounds for the Civil War through the nullification inherent in the theory of individual state supremacy in relation to federal law.

[Mark E. Hurling]

This may be a little too much for some of you:

What's Wrong With Britain? | Trending

One gets the sense that Britain is vying for the gold medal on their side of the Atlantic that Florida seems to enjoy in the US. Just the reverse image of 6 kinds of crazy experienced in FL that the constipated political correctness that officialdom appears to be inflicting on the majority of the law abiding subjects of The Crown by not protecting them or looking out for their best interests.