I live in Britain, and if legal would certainly use a gun — although prolly not carry one — had I one to hand and were I attacked in any way. My face is more important than an aggressor’s life. Actually my kitten’s life is more important than that of anyone who would hurt a kitten. Why would I blame Americans for safeguarding themselves and their loved ones ?
That was any Briton’s right to carry prior to 1919; and anyway I severely dislike being hit.
My opinion? Because compulsory gun ownership implies a realistic program of gun safety education, rather than the current American system of gun-veneration and gun-demonization. Also, the Swiss firearms, if I recall correctly, are rifles and similar arms for defense against invading forces, not the handguns used by American criminals and vigilantes.
ETA: I invite correction of my impressions of Switzerland.
I ask the questions and you lot are meant to answer 'em.
Yes, you can. People start fights, kill the person they provoked and claim immunity under “stand your ground” laws and get away with their killing.
The guns don’t have ammunition as I recall. That just makes them awkward clubs.
Doesn’t make for much of a debate though, does it?
If I was the only other person in the debate then no it wouldn’t.
Until 1997 all militia members were issued 50 rounds by the government. Currently only certain people are issued ammunition but the ammunition is available for anyone to buy.
You probably should not fail to answer questions specifically directed at you, in response to something you stated, or appear to be assuming,though.
This is true. Often we ask for clarification, as otherwise we have the regrettable habit of chasing our own bandwagons. We may believe we are answering your questions but be haring off in a different direction.
But if you are less skilled at fighting than the person who attacks you then you have to take a beating until help arrives. If you have a gun you can defend yourself regardless of size, sex, health or fighting ability.
That may be why the rate of assaults are 133% more in the UK than in the US and why the rate of rape victimization is 125% more than in the US.
We don’t. We only find it necessary to use firearms to defend ourselves when there is a disparity of force between the attacker and the defender, and the defender has a reasonable belief that they are in danger of grave bodily harm or death. You may be confused by certain relatively rare highly publicized cases, which only become newsworthy because one or more of these key aspects are in doubt.
Mostly for keeping the English out of our face.
A more serious answer is that unlike TV, an “attack” isn’t someone “socks you in the kisser” for hitting on his girlfriend in a pub, you tussle about for awhile and then go grab a beer (or whatever). We Americans generally feel that people don’t have to submit themselves to a severe beating from a cracked up homeless lunatic or some roid-raging wanabee MMA fighter whose bent out of shape because he mistakes you for some dude who unknowingly cut him off last week.
Because different countries have different cultures, demographics and other factors? Switzerland is a an affluent country with a relatively homogenous population about the size of New York City. It is likely to have a very different attitude and mentality on guns and gun controls than a country of 300 million people where guns played a large cultural role in the creation of that country and is still dealing with the ramifications of a time when roughly ten percent of the population were considered property because of their color.
People break into homes, rape and murder the homeowner, steal their stuff, and get away with it because they don’t leave behind enough evidence to show that they did it. So by your reasoning, home invasion, rape, murder, and theft are all officially allowed, thanks to so-called “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” laws.
Because there are only around 8 million people living in Switzerland, and most of them are, you know, Swiss (i.e. they are a fairly homogeneous population). We have CITIES that are nearly that large in the US, and we don’t have a very homogeneous population, being comprised of not only Swiss (and the occasional Brit) but people from just about every country, ‘race’, religion and ethnic group on the planet.
We also make crappy chocolate, which might have something to do with it. Haven’t worked that part out yet…
To answer the OP, most Americans don’t. You are equating a few sensationalist and sensationalized stories in the news with the actions of literally hundreds of millions of people. There are more guns in the US than there are people. There are hundreds of millions of Americans running about as well. Yet, there are a relative handful of such sensational stories.
That said, I’m not seeing why someone with a gun shouldn’t defend themselves from someone who is unarmed to be honest. Why should I get the crap beat out of me simply because the other guy is unarmed?? What’s the logic there? If someone tries to beat me up and I have martial arts training, should I refrain from using it if the other guy doesn’t know martial arts or isn’t as good as me? Should I let him kick my ass because of this?
So you can’t be killed in a fist fight? I think some people would disagree.
Soccer referee killed by unarmed teen.
Police officer beaten to death by unarmed teen.
Man found not guilty after punching a man in a bar fight, killing him.
Not really. Please take any Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman discussions to another thread; this looks like a more general discussion.
Because when guns are involved people have a tendency to be killed.
Culture.
Hey, let’s take a look at the part you left off, the part that comes after the word “unless”:
So Der Trihs is right, you can provoke a fight and then kill the other guy and claim SYG or Castle laws and never be punished in any way. In fact, it’s happened already; here are two notable cases from the past few years:
Greyston Garcia chased a man down the street and then stabbed him to death.