[QUOTE=Common Tater]
It’s well established case law or precedent that no one is afforded police protection as such.
Leaving the reams of statistical data and politics aside for a moment, let’s ask the rhetorical question of how one is practically supposed to protect themselves/family/property?
[/QUOTE]
Or defend themselves against a man armed with a piece of fruit?
If you went anywhere else in the world and said that gun ownership by the general population didn’t increase the murder rate, people would look at you funny.
It is true that in countries that have very restrictive gun laws, the criminals tend to carry around knives (and swords and hatchets and pipes and chains), there is still crime but the murder rate is much lower. It is also true that there tends to be less “innocent bystander” fatalities; robberies are replaced by extortion; crime is almost necessarily more organized; and cops don’t really worry about chasing down criminals (many of these places do not even allow beat cops to carry guns). Sure some criminals get their hands on guns from time to time but it is rare and it is dealt with pretty harshly.
I keep hearing people talk about how we are disarming the law-abiding citizen. The way I see it, you either give everyone a gun and live in a wild west environment (people would probably be a lot more polite to each other on a day to day basis but do you really want to live in a country where everyone had a gun?) or you totally disarm the populace.
I would be a lot more skeptical of disarming the general population if we need to violently overthrow the government from time to time but the American people just haven’t risen up in bloody revolution often enough in the last couple of centuries for me to think that it is a serious concern.
Of course the question is how do you disarm 300 million people?
[QUOTE=silenus]
The only ones I have seen are overseas. They show, IIRC, that people just reach for knives instead. The data on places like DC are misleading, because they don’t reflect socio-economic factors. Otherwise, they would show that restricting guns leads to increased violence., which is foolishness. The guns come in from Virginia, etc. That is why “correlation does not equal causality.” There are just too many factors involved, and it is really hard to do research on people over the long-term. The costs are too high.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=col_10022]
do you really want to live in a country where everyone had a gun?)
[/QUOTE]
Almost everybody does have a gun. Statistically per capita anyway. Estimates range as high as 250 million guns in America. Compare that to the 8200 firearm murders
and the chances for any one gun to be used in a murder is so minute’ it almost non-existent.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
how do you disarm 300 million people?
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a great epitaph for someone who tried to confiscate firearms from otherwise law abiding citizens.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
This grows out of the fact that the gun-friendly USA has, by an enormous margin, the highest murder rate among industrialized nations. Most of the others are far less gun-friendly. It also grows from the fact that I proved a couple years back: that gun-friendly areas of the USA (as determined by concealed-carry laws) have much higher murder rates than other areas.
[/QUOTE]
The obvious solution: arm all adults with clean records. I don’t remember who said “An armed society is a polite society”, but there’s something to be considered there.