I gave an example of a gun being used in self-defense. In this case, against a rapist who intends to stick his STD-infected cock into a young woman. I’m not alleging that “guns prevent STDs,” what you have done is twisted my words around into something silly so it’s easier for you to mock it. But the fact of the matter is, with a 99 pound woman and a 250 pound rapist, a handgun levels the playing field.
Could you explain how there is any crime in the US when there are so many guns available for self-defence?
In states where carry permits are readily available, there is less crime than in places like CA, NY and DC. To take Europe as an example, Switzerland has the highest per capita gun ownership in the world - and the lowest crime rate.
**Do you think that criminals are more ready to act if they have a gun?
**
I think they’re sure as hell LESS ready to act if they know that their VICTIM might have a gun.
**
Then why are your police armed?**
To protect themselves. A right which private citizens in many states have been denied.
**Interesting. I post that the US is ‘is packed full of decent hard-working honest peaceful people’ and you imply we called you barbaric.
**
I was being a little sarcastic.
**
Well you are [insulting us.] Not in the completely over-the-top way of DrCube, but he supports your views.
**
Again, no offense intended. And it’s not my fault if someone else supports my views - what I’ve posted is just my own thoughts. If anything I think we’ve had a reasonable discussion and an interesting cross-cultural discourse here, not a bitter argument.
It’s ridiculous to say that any gun can and does have only one use. A knife can cut vegetables, and also can trim fingernails, pierce blisters and clean dog-shit off a shoe. A specific gun, owned by a particular individual, may be there for killing rival drug dealers, for killing animals, or for shooting inanimate targets. That it can be used in so many ways doesn’t make it inherently a Bad Thing, it makes it an item which should be very tightly controlled. IMO.
I bet there’s a LOT of guns within a short walk of where I’m sat right now. If my car gets a window broken, it’s big enough news to make the local paper. What’s the connection? I’m in a relatively-affluent rural location, rather than because a criminal is more likely to get a gun pointed at them. (I wonder where the states with carry permits readily available rank on a list of population density.)
Switzerland is just BONKERS compared to any other country - it’s either the highest or the lowest, the best or the worst, easiest or most restrictive, most open or most secretive. A better comparison would be with more similar countries, such as across France and the low countries. Although I don’t have the stats myself…
Maybe so about Switzerland, but if you believe the statistics about the high gun ownership and low crime rate, then you pretty much have to agree that the guns themselves don’t inherently cause crime.
If I can have a go at trying to explain why we feel offended (not that I think you’re being deliberately so);
Earlier you talked about people in American “realising” and “recognising” the good points of guns - the counterpoint being not that we disagree but that we don’t realise nor recognise those things. A couple of times in this thread you’ve mentioned not buying the explanations that various Brits have suggested; it does seem somewhat presumptuous (though certainly not necessarily wrong) to assume you understand the British psyche to the extent of not just disagreeing with but rejecting entirely the notions that others have brought up. You’ve assumed that the reason Brits aren’t interested in guns is because, not a reasoned basis, but that our class system is such that we average types simply don’t question our lords and betters.
If I started a thread asking you about the American cultural tradition and reasoning behind gun ownership, how would you feel if I not only disagreed but outright denied your answers being correct? If I pointed out the things which we British types realise and understand about guns, that you apparently do not? And if I put down your ownership of guns to a psychological quirk due to your social system, and suggested you don’t even really reason out why you own them, you just don’t ever question the matter?
You have been nothing but polite (well, except to the U.N. ;)), but you can be offensive without shouting and swearing. Again, i’m not accusing you of being deliberately offensive, but trying to explain why what you’ve said might be taken as offense.
Point taken, my friend. I’ve never been to the UK and I certainly can’t presume to speak for the country and speculate on it’s citizens’ motivations for believing what they do, so I was out of line.
In Switzerland, you get your guns after age 20, after having taking part in the mandated boot camp training for national militia.
I agree that guns do not inherently in and of themselves cause crime. But you really can’t use Switzerland as an example by simply saying “They have lots of guns, and little crime!”, and prove that one is not related to the other.
I’m not opposed to the idea of a national militia. If there was a real National Guard in America that didn’t get sent off to Iraq, that actually just stayed at home and, you know, guard the nation…helping with disaster relief…providing backup for police in case of emergency or riot…and not have to worry about being sent to a dirty desert with lots of sand and no women around for miles…I would join it today. Unfortunately no such thing exists.
I think America would be much better off if we had the system that Switzerland does, and I think at the very least, everyone should receive gun-safety training by certified instructors in high school.
Quite. It shows that there are ways to integrate guns into a low-crime society, but it does not eliminate guns as a risk factor for higher crime (or more likely, a higher incidence of fatality associated with violent crime).
I agree. I’m surprised it’s still in GD and not the Pit. Apparently the thread hasn’t become pittable yet, but, man, has it gotten close. Circumlocutions everywhere.
Hopefully, I’m not Jr. Modding. I can’t quite figure out where the limit is.
Absolutely not, and I don’t think that’s how anybody here has portrayed it. The situation in Switzerland is able to exist because of a low crime rate and a very stable society, not as a cause of it.
It’s already been said. The purpose of a gun is whatever use the user decides. I have a bunch of them around here that have never been fired at any kind of living target. A couple of them are rather specialized guns designed for use in specific target games. They are suitable for killing about the same way a croquet mallet is.
Well, there’s no reason to stand on the sidelines and discuss stuff like this. I’m trying to be reasonable and polite and have a genuine debate here and I do not think we have failed in that, at all. If all the ridiculous threads about politics and religion, that have people flinging every thinly-disguised insult in the book at each other, can stay in GD, then so can this one.
While I agree with the idea that guns aren’t solely used for killing, I disagree that they are somehow as suitable for it as a croquet mallet.
The same reasons for gun ownership are the reasons why. A gun allows a weaker or otherwise unadept person to defend themselves from a stronger, dangerous attacker. Why? Because a gun requires little physical strength to use. It provides good protection against an attacker with a knife or melee weapon. Why? Because it means a gun owner does not have to contest with the attacker in a physical confrontation. It does not require you to stand next to them. A gun allows a weaker person to easily carry a self-defense weapon. Why? Because it’s considerably lighter than a croquet mallet, yet somewhat more dangerous.
A gun is extremely suitable for killing. If it wasn’t, then there would be no reason to carry it in self-defense. It is certainly a tool. But it is an *efficient *tool.
Hat in the ring. I’d like this to stay as a reasonable discussion. Those who feel likewise, please make yourselves known, lest we risk being shovelled off to the pit.
British people are - by and large - quite happy not to have guns. This is the normal state of things for us. It’s not some deficiency for which we require sympathy or remedy.
Ever seen a free pistol? It is an example of one of the highly specialized guns I mentioned upthread. A good hardwood croquet mallet would actually be a superior tool for killing another person.
