The problem may be that the hero of the story fired at the fleeing robbers, not at the time they entered his store with knives. I don’t know what the truth is at the moment, but for me it doesn’t matter, the robbers have themselves to blame and hopefully the injured one dies.
You know why this store owner more than likely is going to jail for a much longer time than any robber? Well, let’s consult the experts…
You see the government doesn’t want you to protect yourself, what would we then need government for? And besides, if people are armed, they might protect themselves from the government as well...
The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself.
Armed citizens are less afraid, they will scare off criminals and make any rape, robbery or attack much riskier. This the government cannot allow, they need people to be afraid, to rely on government for protection. People who are afraid and not protected are far more likely to trust anything any elected fraud tells them.
No wonder Nazi Germany outlawed privately owned guns...
Yep self-defence might be regarded as a "murder" if the robber would die. And at least "attempt to murder" if the robber would survive. The logic behind it? Well don't defend yourself, especially not if you think the robber might get hurt. Sweden in a nutshell!
ReplyDeleteSweden today is nothing but a sad joke.
ReplyDeleteMarkus Valiant
So what stops the rapist, robber or attacker from being armed...?
ReplyDeletewow... you managed to weave in Hitler. You should work for FOX.
ReplyDelete"I believe that people on this planet, generally speaking, are a very brainless bunch".
ReplyDeleteLol. Wow man, you are so smart.
@Patrick:
ReplyDeleteNothing, just as today. The only thing you do by outlawing ordinary citizens from owning guns is that the only ones armed are REAL outlaws and the police. You see the difference would be that people get a fighting chance and have the means to protect themselves. That in itself is a deterrant and when a couple of would-be rapists end up dead, the next ones will think many times before acting.
@Kalle:
ReplyDeleteThanks, but I would never work with lots of lefties, conservatives and other idiots.
@Anonymous:
Thank you! And yes I am.
If You are threatened by robbers and You defend Yourself, it´s not reasonable to blame the defender. Too many idiots are making life to a hell for descent people, who just work hard to try to get things together.
ReplyDeletePeople who deliberately choose a criminal behaviour should have the hell, and descent people should be the heroes!
In my opinion, drugs are the root of most crimes; So drug dealers maybe should be hanged at first sight?
Carl /
How does shooting the robbers when they are fleeing from the scene constitude self defense?
ReplyDeleteThe law says that you are allowed to use the force nessesary to protect yourself or another person from harm, but no more than that. From what I read in the newpapers I don't think that can apply in this case.
Of course you are allowed to defend yourself according to Swedish law. But you are not allowed to use more force than necessary. He could have just pointed the gun at them and they would have run away. Or maybe shoot a warning shoot. In this case the robbers where about to leave anyway and he was clearly using excessive violence.
ReplyDeleteThe State of Florida in the US introduced a right-to-carry (a concealed hand gun) a few years back. This ment all law abiding citizens got the right to carry a hand gun for selfdefence, including little old ladies.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened? Violent street crimes including robbery and rape shrunk drastically. After all, it ain't fun being confronted with a 0.45 pointing straight at you when all you did was trying to make a living or have some fun.
Chances are pretty slim, though, we ever will get such laws in Sweden.
Well, is a life, no matter who it belongs to, be as low worth?
ReplyDeleteTo risk killing another human being for a few hundred pieces, or a cigarette, says as much about the robbed, as those who robbed!
Life is worth much more than that.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/76395-gun-control
ReplyDelete---
Thirty-two years ago, lawmakers banned gun ownership in D.C. Over the next three decades, the murder rate in the nation’s capital skyrocketed 134 percent. Yet in the two years since a federal appeals court overturned the D.C. ban of handguns, the incidence of gun violence has dropped dramatically. The example of Washington only reinforces what scientific research has long since discerned: Strict gun laws do not work. Indeed, the cities with the most restrictive gun laws — Washington, Chicago, New York and California — consistently rate among the highest level of violent crime in the country. In New Jersey, the murder rate jumped 46 percent in the two years since lawmakers enacted what they called "the most stringent gun law" in the country.
---
@Galileo:
ReplyDeleteLife is worth a lot, but if you use yours to destroy others, if you go out and rape, pillage, rob and murder, well then you have no right to that life. I’m not a fan of capital punishment, mainly because the government never should have the power to kill its citizens, I am however a strong believer in Life and in order to protect life you need the means to do so.
A small petite woman has no chance to outrun or outfight a couple of large would-be rapists, but with a Glock the playing field is rapidly becomes the woman’s. Only in an unjust, horrible country are people banned from protecting themselves.
You got to be kidding me...? First you want to steal copyrighted material and now you want us to run around armed? More guns = more guns violence... The US has many times more gun related killings then EU and Japan together, and there are far more people in EU and Japan then in the US.
ReplyDeleteAnd about your DC info, do you have something more solid then another gun crazy blogger?
(yes, I will look for the numbers on gun violence in the US compared with EU/Japan).
In sweden the second worst thing you can do in the eyes of the law is to defend yourself. The worst thing is to defend someone else.
ReplyDeleteBecause when you do that you threaten the power of the lawyers, which is the only crime that is ever investigated in sweden.
According to Wikipedia the US has 5.4 homicides per 100000, Sweden has 0.89. For rape it's 32.99 vs 24.47 (this is more uncertain since not all rapes are reported). I don't believe that you can blaim the homicide rate on the availability of guns alone. The issue is more complex than that. But if you want to argue that guns reduces criminality you will have to find a better example than the US.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
@Patrick
ReplyDeleteI don’t want to steal anything; you’ve still not gotten the point. But yes, people should be armed, all of us should be. And all the evidence shows that there’s a direct correlation between more guns and less assaults. The same goes with the opposite, people aren’t armed and they are more likely to end up being victims. Statistic from the US tells us this.
Switzerland is another good example with guns in every house and very low crime-rate. UK imposed gun restrictions and since then crimes have went up. The examples are endless. But as you indirectly point out, not all countries are the same, cultural differences, different levels of poverty etc. also has an impact on the statistics.
But the statistics are actually secondary; the right to own, carry and protect you with weapons should be absolute. Also people should be owning guns to protect themselves not only from normal criminals but also the worst culprit and worst murderer of them all; government.
Switzerland is also a very poor example.
ReplyDeleteSwitzerland, like Canada, is packed with long-arms (rifles, not to mention the ubiquitous SiG-510 and SiG-550 auto and semi-auto conversions related to swiss military service). Handguns (pistols, revolvers etc) however are rare.
Also, unless you're a militiaman (and the weapon you're carrying is your issued weapon and you're on your way to shooting practice) it's illegal to carry a weapon in public without a license (which is only issued if there is a clear threat profile or if you need it in your line of work) and the penalties for carrying a weapon in public or misuse of a firearm are harsh.
Switzerland has a lot of guns, but if you think it's gun-nut heaven you're sadly mistaken.
It should also be noted that there are a huge number of legal riffles in Sweden (more than in most European countries). But these are for hunting only and most of the time they are securely stored in a safety cabinet.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Lol, only retards would not understand that gun control is a good thing. Look at USA and Finland for instance, shootings all the time over there.
ReplyDeleteYeah, because that never happens in France, Germany or China? And have you read the news lately? Been four shootings in 2 days in Sweden, no one dead yet from those, but still...
ReplyDeleteAnd take a look at where those shooting take place in the US. Is it states with gun-restriction or in oh let's say Texas?
Do you really think we would have less serious (violent) crimes in Sweden if we alloweed the public to wear hand guns?
ReplyDeleteIf so, how many accidental shootings would be considered a "good trade off" for every stopped violent crime?
@ B. Wisser:
ReplyDeleteYes, but that alone isn't really enough. Other things need to change as well like legalizing drugs and such. If that happened we would see a 50% or more decrease.
Accidental shootings occure today as well, maybe one or two more would happen in the beginning, but on the other hand we allow people to love at home. The worst enemy of all Swedes are their own homes.