At least you admit that this is just your OPINION. Or as you like to say, your “preferred summary.”
Steve,
To that percieved threat, anyway.
Gay bashing is a real threat. Gays are sometimes physically assaulted exclusively because of their sexual preference. We have a President who believes in changing the Constitution in order to codify discrimination against gays as a priority above a state’s rights to decide these matters for itself. These laws and amendments have legislators actively advocating for them and proposing laws left and right.
There is no real threat of gun banning in this country. While there are some who believe that such would be an effective approach, there are very few who believe that it is a just approach, and nowhere near a plurality in public opinion or the legislature for it. OTOH many people believe that gun regulation can be improved upon in a rational manner. The “gun culture” reaction of presuming that each of them is actually a stealth banner, and obstructing all regulation as representingh the first step of a slippery slope is using a bazooka to hunt a mouse.
It is akin to the gay who believes that someone who expresses a discomfort with calling a gay lifetime committment “marriage” but is comfortable with the phrase “legal union” that has all the same rights as marriage is the same as the most vitriolic homophobe.
Because we don’t like to do things half-assed?
Snake:
I’m sure that one could somehow shoehorn almost any crime, from robbery to car theft, into the gun debate - I tried to provide the most relevant statistics to pop the common myth in the US that the UK or elsewhere is “more criminal” or “more violent”. Yes, burglaries are nearly twice as common here, but is that really so big a hill of beans compared to four times the murder rate (or twice the rape rate which, for that matter, “concealed carry” is also supposed to address)?
And it works both ways: if I may not correlate a higher murder rate with gun access, then neither may you with a lower burglary rate.
No, that’s plain wrong. Crime rates are decreasing throughout industrialised democracies for some reason. (Scientific American - just a precis there since the article is subscription only - suggests that this might be due, amongst other things, to the end of the 1990’s ‘crack wave’.) Assaults do seem to be bucking that trend somewhat, but the variations are small - the US and UK are still largely similar in that respect.
Like I said, it’s not coincidence, it’s incorrect. A myth, curiously only frequently found in the US.
That the murder rate in the US is 4 times higher? Yes, I do, given that the total crime rate and assault rate are similar. Something is causing those crimes and assaults to be more lethal, agreed?
Actually, it’s 8259 of 12,658 (66%!) - those per capita figures suffer from heavy rounding. In the UK, only 6% of murders used firearms.
For every person murdered in the UK, three more are murdered in the US. 66% of people in the US are murdered with firearms, only 6% in the UK.
Are these opinions, or facts?
Sorry, that citation that crime is DECREASING in the UK was only for Scotland, but the same is true nationwide.
This article shows the overall drop at the bottom - also explaining the anomaly of the drop in violent crime versus the large increase in reported violent crime.
You might want to rephrase this, because it looks rather strangely like 66% of the US population will be shot to death each year.
What makes a murder worse if it is committed with a firearm? The fact is, all types of murder account for more cases in the US than in the UK, but it’s only the murders involving firearms that get people’s backs up. It wouldn’t be any better (to paraprhase Archie Bunker) if they were pushed out of windows.
What would be beneficial, instead of just focusing on firearms, would be to look at ways to decrease crime.
Sorry, 66% of murder victims in the US are killed using firearms.
Nothing per se. It is simply that the murders using firearms seem to be the murders which don’t happen in the UK, where firearm access is limited. Rates for all other means of killing appear similar - it is the huge numbers of firearm murders which inflate the US murder rate so enormously.
You do not find the correlation significant?
It IS decreasing (PDF). Can we not also target specific serious crimes such as murder?
There are localities in this country (e.g. Washington DC) were private ownership and possession guns is to all intents and purposes banned. That being the case, I don’t think that gun onwers’ concerns are so easily dismissed.
Also, would anybody suggest that this sort of reasoning should be applied to other constitutional rights? (e.g. “The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is just being hysterical – nobody’s going to take away your Amazing Spider-Man collection.” or “What’s the big deal if that Padilla guy gets detained without a day in court – they aren’t going to start rounding up people en masse.”)
And again I must ask you if it is fair or accurate to compare the whole US to the UK. In places in the US where it is either impossible or extremely difficult for non-law enforcement to own or carry firearms (DC, Chicago, NYC, LA), the lack of legal firearms should indicate very few firearms murders by your impression, but that is not the case. These cities are commonly seeing far more firearms murders than cities such as Pittsburgh, where it is extremely easy to legally own and carry a firearm.
We should do so by targetting the crimes and the criminals who commit them. Not the law abiding people who aren’t out killing others.
No, as I said in another thread, my impression is that whether ownership is legal or not is a red herring: it is simple ease of access which I believe to be the most significant factor. Extensive legal ownership outside designated vaults increases that ease of access, which is why I believe that gun ownership should be decided once and for all at a national level.
Yes, let us try and lower the total rate and the assault rate also. But since murder is a more serious crime, should we not be address how to lower the murder rate more seriously?
Jeesus - a lot has been said on this thread since i was last here !
Ok - my last post was two pages ago but ill try and answer some ponts from back then.
Triskadecamus:
“But, if I have to fight, I will fight to protect myself. If the threat includes the potential of death, I might well shoot the person trying to kill me. If someone tries to hurt me with his fists, I cannot hope to out fight him. But I still want to protect myself. If I am able to do so, I will present him with the possibility that I will kill him to protect myself. To do that, I need a gun. I can reliably shoot to kill; at up to twenty five yards. Beyond that, even I might have a fairly good chance of getting away.”
This, to me, says that you would much rather shoot someone than get a kicking. That sounds like overkill as other have said. Is it not the classic and original “shoot first, ask questions later”? “Sorry about the bullet in your spine - whats that? You were just showing off to you mates and trying to look hard? Oh”.
People all over the world are getting a kicking and no-one is dying. Why do you feel different? Do Americans in general think they are more likely to beaten to death by a stranger others? Is it a certainty? I wouldnt know where to start looking for figures, but surely it is still a fantastically small chance - just like lots of things in life. Do you consider the use of a rocket propelled grenade would be justified in stopping a car which looks like it may be comming your way?
enipla:“I bet I could kick Sinical brits’ ass though. (Just being silly, and trying to make a point).”
I reckon you could too - thats the point. I’m a pussy, but because you have a gun in your bag, you presume that i do and at that point your only real option is to shoot me. Overkill (s’cuse pun!).
“Sinical brit, are fights common in Briton? Have you ever been in one? Could you always win a fight against a “garden varity thug”? Would you feel inadquate if you couldn’t?”
Enipla, i have not had a big fight since i was at school, where it was part of growing up - establishing an order and deciding on who your friends were. Of course school bullies and thugs are also usefull in developing some diplomatic methods of avoiding trouble.
“Self defence classes? Sure, that could make a difference. I really don’t know how much though.”
Thats because, ( it sounds like ) you are of the opinion that every knob with issues, is about to hack you to pieces. I REALLY doubt they are, in which case self defence classes would make a big difference - not only to the outcome of the situation, but your self esteem. ( sorry to tell you what you are thinking - my bad english ).
Snakespirit:
"Nah, they’re trying to “Britianize” us – take away guns from everyone but the criminals and then if we defend ourselves against armed criminals they throw us in jail.
I hear that the violent crime rates are skyrocketing in Britian, New Zealand and Australia, corresponding with the increasingly prohibitive gun laws there. Just coincidence, I’m sure…"
I dont thin “we” are trying to do anything of the sort. As far as im aware this is a tiny discussion forum in a small web site amogst millions - chill out FFS !
As for the second bit - its been said before - cite. Where exactly did you hear this - was it those bloody voices again?
Seriously - we are lucky in Britain not to have to worry about animals eating us - you guys with bears need to have guns - as do sportsmen and women and police. Saying that everyone needs one because everyone has one, sheesh - i’d like that pr man on my staff !
Catsix:
"The US happens to have a lot more people involved in gang warfare and the violence surrounding illegal drug trafficking than the UK does, and these things tend to lend themselves more toward rivals killing each other than rivals assaulting each other.
That’s something I think people conveniently overlook in a rush to compare the US with the UK by just bleating out ‘The US has more guns!’"
Good point. Is it not equaly valid to say that the gun culture was in place before the gangs, upped the ante and forced bored and scared youths to team up for protection in gangs? ( i dont pretend to know much about gangs - -but we do have them. They are responsible for “low level disorder” i think the gov calles it, and it IS a problem. But they arent shooting eachother and i think that is important too.
Gotta go home now.
sin
That’s really not how it works, and it’s certainly not how you’re trained to handle things. The standard is, in Pennsylvania, ‘reasonable fear for your life or the life of another person.’ before you are authorized by law in using deadly force. Use of ‘deadly force’ constitutes brandishing a firearm without firing a shot.
I was taught that should someone attack me with a weapon or break into my home, and I fear for my life, I am justified in drawing my firearm and that one further step forward on the part of the attacker justifies firing. You are flat out taught never, ever to shoot to wound.
You’re also told you’re going to be in a whole mess of legal shit if you whip out a gun in a traditional fist fight.
If someone attacks me here, they will very likely have a weapon of some kind, and it won’t just be a ‘fist fight’ as a random crime that involves getting an ‘ass kicking’. It’ll be someone like the East End Rapist who comes through my window in the middle of the night, or the crackhead who DID come through my front door.
Nope, it’s actually more like ‘If I do encounter that one in a million knob with issues who does want to hack me to pieces, I would like to be able to defend myself.’
I think a lot of this debate centers on a misunderstanding of the mindset of people like myself - people who own firearms and train to use them for self defense.
If you want to know how my mind works on those issues, asking is better than telling.
It’s not a matter of ‘need’. It was a matter of ‘want’. I have the Constitutionally protected right to own one, I could afford it, and so I bought it. I can use it as a very effective self defense tool, but it’s not like I’d shrivel up and die if I left the house with out it (which most of the time, I do).
Firearms have been part of American culture for all the time that there has been an America, but I’d hesitate to say that gangs are part of American firearms culture. I think they spring up more from the inner-city poverty and drug ridden conditions that tend to surround them, as well as crumbling families (of any race) where the gang acts as a ‘surrogate family’ to the gang member. I don’t pretend to be a gang expert, but I know there are sociologists out there who specifically study the sociology of American gang culture. (Something I learned in 11th grade psychology)
Well, yes, true. But you should not shoot to “kill,” either.
When it comes to personal protection, you never shoot to kill; you shoot to stop. Any death is incidental. If you ever say that your intent was to “kill” and not merely “stop,” the jury will look at you quite suspiciously.
First of all, how do I know I will receive a mere “kicking”? Even if it is a “kicking,” how do I know it won’t be severe? I figure it’s better that I don’t find out.
Here’s the deal: If someone runs toward me, and I have reason to believe the person is going to physically hurt me, I will point my gun at him and yell “stop” (if I have time). If he continues to run towards me, I will know the guy is “serious.” At that point it is much better for me to try to stop him by pointing my gun at his chest and pulling the trigger.
I was taught that the greatest chance of stopping results from shots placed in the center of mass. Considering that it’s a high stress situation, you have your best odds if you aim for the biggest part.
It’s also uncommon, at least here, for defensive shootings to ever end up in front of a jury, due in part to the law regarding it and the attitude of DAs in southwest PA.
To be safe you should always assume you will end up in front of a jury. All of your actions – and everything you say – should be performed under the assumption that you’ll end up in court.
With this in mind, do not talk to the cops after the shooting. Simply say that you were “afraid for your life,” and that you’d like to talk to your attorney. That’s it. Then immediately write everything down and call your attorney ASAP.
While that should always be kept in mind, I was just sort of musing on the way such events get treated where I live as opposed to other areas of the country.
I didn’t mean “they” as in terms of Brits, sorry if you misunderstood. I meant “they” in terms of "people who want to enact a US gun ban similar to the ban in effect in Britian. No cultural slur intended.
Oh come on now, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST THE SAME CITE???
God that was RUDE! What do you mean? You are insinuating that I hear voices that aren’t there, and you say “again.” As if this is a common occurance.
It’s probably also a violation of Great Debate rules, insinuating that I am schitzophrenic. What kind of a person are you, anyway?
Sinical,
I don’t want to shoot anyone. I don’t want to kick anyone’s ass. I don’t want to shove anyone in the chest to make some sort of point about dominance. I don’t want to get into violent confrontations with drunken assholes, whatever their opinions are.
But I don’t want drunken assholes deciding to show their mates what tough guys they are by kicking my ass. I don’t want to prove that I “can take an asskicking” to prove some dubious point of honor to some Neanderthal philosopher of the streets. The fact is that I don’t have the legal responsibility to allow myself to get attacked up until my life is in danger. I have the right to defend myself from physical attack, and if I use deadly force, someone will have to prove in a court of law that it was not reasonable for me to be in fear of serious bodily harm.
What I do want is for drunken assholes to go to jail for a year if they shove someone in a bar. No, really, a year in jail, first offense as an adult. And if they kick someone’s ass for any reason at all, I want them in prison, for five to twenty years. And I want everyone in the whole country to know that using even a verbal threat of violence against others is criminal behavior, and is not tolerated even on a first offense, anywhere in the entire country. And if they brandish a firearm to impress their friends, I want them in prison, first time, one to five years for assault with a deadly weapon.
I won’t ever have that. But, here in my hometown, I can carry a pistol on my hip anytime I want. If I have a concealed carry permit, I can have one you can’t see. I don’t generally do so. I do occasionally carry a pistol on my hip. Mostly when I am going to the range. I don’t live in fear. I don’t live with fantasies of gunning down bad guys in the street. I don’t have a problem with self image, or a sense of masculine inadequacy, or a need to feel dominant over people I meet. Actually, I am a pretty nice guy. And it doesn’t hurt anyone that one quiet nice guy out there might be a very bad choice of target for “kicking ass to prove to your mates that you are a tough guy.”
Tris