How about the mutual safety of we, the people, as a valid reason? Of course, this consideration can be (and no doubt will be) argued both ways.
Comparative crime statistics is a subject fraught with problems. Nevertheless, consider the following report produced in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Its comparison of American and English crime statistics was intended to be unflattering towards the English.
One way of summarising its findings would be that burglary, car theft, assault and (possibly) robbery are more common in England, but that murder and rape are more common in the U.S. One could argue that both sides of that contrast are functions of the long-established differences in policy towards guns. The widespread availability of guns both discourages and encourages certain types of crime.
This is very foolish from a logistic standpoint as others have suggested but from a legal one as well. Under Arizona law the act of merely pointing a gun at someone is considered to be use of deadly force. If the threat has reached the point that you are justified to use a weapon you had better use it well and not try to “wing him.” You’ve been watching too many movies if you think that shooting a person in a limb is as effective or any less deadly than a center mass or central nervous systm shot. A person can quickly bleed to death from an artery hit but remains a threat. The only goal of a defensive shooting is to make the goblin (can you tell whose column I read regularly?) stop being a threat immediately.
“Is that a super Redhawk in your pocket, 'cause you don’t seem at all happy to see me…” Anthracite, I know the reality of disparity of force for women but if you can handle a .44 magnum your aren’t that weak.
One could just as easily say that that the differences are due to differing national attitudes, character, and mores, or differing social contracts, or differing levels of opportunty, or differing laws in regards to how specific crimes are handled, or… The list goes on. Comparing any culture’s behavior to any other is an exercise in ‘apples and oranges’, unless you’re willing to go to very detailed level and broad scope. The above study doesn’t come close.
Also note, that prior to 1920, firearms ownership in the UK was rather encouraged. From this site:
And:
And:
So note that the most restricive laws in regards to firearms ownership in English history, to that date, were enacted at time when firearms crimes were at low-ebb. I wonder why?
Finally:
I think that says it all, but please, go check it out for yourself.
I like the feeling of power you get from shooting. It extends your destructive reach. For example, on a hunting trip I go on a few times a year with a bunch of guys, we have trap shooting contests for a dollar a man. If you win a round, you win 12-15 bucks, depending on how many people enter. But not only do you win money, you also walk away with the illusion that, at least until the next round, you are the deadliest dude there. It’s kind of cool.
How ironic coming from someone named “Gwar” Hail and Kill indeed.
On the OP,
To keep the King of England out of our face, of course
Seriously … others have stated it more eloquently, but apart from the practical aspect of self-defense in the face of violent crime, an informed, educated, and armed populace is the best defense against tyranny. Some Americans, like myself, live in states where the right to revolution against tyrannical governments is guaranteed by our state constitutions. I know of no instance in world history where this has been accomplished with kind words.
The 2nd Ammendment (SA) to the US Consitution recognizes the right of Ameican citizens to keep and bear arms. The operative language in the SA is that this right belongs to “the people.” It is clear that “the people” refers to free citizens and not members of the military or National Guard. The only folk who try to say that the SA does not apply to “the people” would never think of depriving “the people” of the other enumerated items in the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Frankly, I could care less what the citizens of Great Britain, the British Commonwealth, or Japan think about our SA and the RKBA. As I recall, we went to war with those nations in our past, and we righteously kicked their butts. As for the Brits, our gun-toting cowboys saved their asses from Hitler and Hirohito’s goons.
These other nations are free to criticize our ways all they want. None of them grant their citizens the rights and freedoms that we Americans enjoy.
No society will be free of sociopathic predatory scumbags. In my opinion the best protection the average citizen has from these scumbags is the RKBA. I have no problem whatsoever with sane and law-abiding citizens packing heat. I think that if more pwople like Anthracite were packing heat, fewer scumbags would try to rape women or assualt any other law-abiding citizen for fear of being shot dead.
There is something about being armed that promotes courtesy in the law-abiding populace, which at the same time discourages the will of antisocial predators to assault their fellow armed citizens. It has been said that “an armed society is a polite society.” I routinely carry a concealed pistol on my person, and I can say that this awesome responsibilty has made me even politer than I would have been otherwise. The armed citizen can afford to “speak softly and carry a big stick.” What applied to the US under Teddy Roosevelt applies to each of us US citizens. The gunophobes of the rest of the world can criticize our SA all they want. When they grow up, they can try to emulate our ideals.
Actually, Hail and Kill was done by Manowar, not Gwar. I’m listening to it as I type, thanks to you. Gwar gave us such gems as “We Kill Everything”, “Gonna Kill U”, and “Pre-Skool Prostitute”.
Well. Almost 5 years on the net, and I still haven’t learned a fundamental lesson- body language doesn’t come across on a message board, you have to use a smilie. Anthracite, my comments were tongue in cheek…of course, if you are being threatened, you should use whatever force you need to counter the threat.
Foolishness. Absolute foolishness. What does a “man and his dog” have to do with “some bullied kid”? What sort of logic are you using to assume that one unrelated factor affects another?
More foolishness. Of course you wouldn’t leave such things lying around. Nor would you leave a gun and/or ammunition lying around. Your fictional arguments bear no weight.
A problem? On a very, very small scale, yes. But exactly how many “suicidal, insane, ignorant or vigilante” instances have there been in the past year, here in America? Three, maybe?
Yeah. Three instances. That’s SUCH a big problem. THREE WHOLE FRIGGIN’ TIMES it’s happened! What a hu-u-u-u-uge problem.
::sigh::
People… if you think Gun Control is a good idea, take my advice: Avoid association with people like Kat22.
I wish I could find the article, or remember the name of the town, or even the general location… But I think it was here in Oregon. A town passed a rather unusual and controvertial law, which when I first heard about, sounded flat-out insane…
The law REQUIRED every household with an “able” member (IE, one that would legally be able to buy a firearm, and is deemed safe to own one) to have a self-defence firearm on the property.
But I was particularly surprised by the drop in violent crimes involving entering the homes (Home invasion, robbery, etc): 0.2 %
No, not BY 0.2%. TO 0.2%… One fiftieth the level before the law. I’m still not sure if I should believe it or not, that seemed rather excessive
And I see school shootings being used again as a “prop” for gun-controll. I put a post in a Pit thread about how it might not have only made little difference, but possibly worse (If the shooters at Columbine had made the fuse right for the bomb placed in the caffeteria, it would have been MUCH worse… And at Thurston, if Kip had brought along one of his many bombs instead of guns, it would have been over before anyone could do anything, and many more would have been killed). Personally, though, I get rather annoyed when someone starts pointing at a school shooting and using it to prop up their own vaguely-related political goals as some catch-all “solution” to the problem. :mad:
IIRC this was in a small town in Georgia that never had many violent crimes to begin with. A single home invasion type crime committed (or not committed) could throw it off significantly from year to year. I don’t know of any study that has successfully linked increased gun ownership with a decrease in crime. Admittedly, though, it would be nearly impossible to do so.
I’m not sure how requiring guns in homes would reduce break-ins, though. If I were a criminal and I needed a gun, I would know exactly which town to go to. Wait until no one is home and steal all their guns. Move on to the next house. In a short time you could get all the guns you need.
Home invasion is a relatively rare form of robbery, IIRC. Whether you know for sure they have a gun, or you are not sure, a break-in while people are home is a risky business. Why chance it when it is so much easier to rob them when they aren’t there?
We had a thread on the Georgia town a while back. Someone linked us up to a Freeper article which claimed that crime had dropped in that one town, thus this same ordinance would obviously work all over the country. A closer analysis of the article, however, found that there wasn’t any actually proof that crime had dropped; the article was very misleading.
But here’s the problem: throughout American history, firearms have not been used to overthrow tyrants. When Joe McCarthy was ruining the lives of thousands of innocent Americans, why didn’t someone just shoot him? Would you gun supporters be happier if the issue had been resolved that way? When Martin Luther King Jr. led the Montgomery bus boycott and subsequent protests, did the protesters break out their weapons and start slaughtering police officers? Should they have?
The number of American households that own at least one firearm hovers around fifty percent. How many gun owners do we need before crime actually goes down?
