It appears the UK data is different, although I would discount the middle group as being too broad to be relavent.
: Don't think half of those count as aquaintances- certainly not the cabbies one. Also, most of
those illustrate situations in which people were killed, because they would not normally draw
a gun in those social situations, hence most of those figures would still occur with guns owned
Remember that the key to this is not whether or not people can draw guns in specific situations, its the perceived chance of being shot whilst commiting a crime that is the deterrent. If all criminals were 'do or die' in their approach then guns would be a marginal benefit, although the death rate both criminals and victims would rise in various shoot outs and surprise crimes - this just isnt ho it works. Criminals arent 'do or die' types, they would mug an old lady before a 6' athlete because the athlete might beat him up, even if the chances of doing so are low.
: I restate my point- Guns are useless for self-defence, and pointless to discuss in terms of making people safer
I repeat that wodespread gun ownership presents a deterrent to criminals because criminasl generally want it risk free and even small risks are too much. this is supported by studies in america, but causilty is only demonstrable in anecdotal evidence as some other change (eg the weather) could be held as the cause.:
: Right to self defence is not co-eval with the ownership of guns, they are two seperate matters.
Then would hitting with fists be something we could consider as pointless too? the establishment of the principle of self defence requires the ability to do so without being placed at a weak position.
: Because they are a private matter, not a public matter, a militia is a public body, in order to be able to function you'll need uniformity of weaponry.
An indivuals self defence is a provate matter however.
On the discussion over language usage. Its interesting that the sentence on its own can receive two contradictory meanings dependant upon the analysis (and I do think coperuds analysis was consistent and correct). Most people can read it either way, personally I think it needed more clarification - its almost as if the writer were thinking specifically of a way in which to confuse readers a hundred years donw the line
Founding father 1 "hmm. fellow framers, this second amendment - lets use very unusual syntax shall we?
Founding father 2 "well, what youve written makes sense to me, but couldnt you make it a lot clearer? does it have to be only one sentence?"
Founding father 1 "oh, youre no fun anymore, youve got to leave the audience wanting more!"
Anyway..imagine that the amendment was "You can use a gun as part of a militia and no more" - that would make a legal state of affairs, but not cast judgment upon the right to self defence. However unusual the syntax is I do think the amendment both explains and has as intention the RKBA for individuals regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.
: Better self-defence- living in a society that has less violence, this is brought about by decreasing poverty and increasing the quality of life- people are not criminals for the hell of it, its been shown that when theres money around and the economy is sound, crime falls. Prevention is better than guns. Wouldn't even take long.
So you wouldnt be opposed to ownership of the means to self defence meanwhile - allowing a free people to drop their guns when the miniscule chance of damaging yourself with your own one is higher than the even tiner chance of being a victim of a crime? Incidently, whilst I also agree that much crime is borne of poverty, I dont think it would drop to near zero.
: Really? Wouldn't have thought so, and anyway, a second may be too long. Plus in the home it may well be 50 yards awwyay or so when a friend attacks. To be effective it would have to be ready at all times. Wouldn't want to live in that society, really.
According to several us gun clubs, I imagine that if youre shit scared its eitehr fster or slower depending on how you react to threat (freeze or act). you already do live in a society with a fair amount of crime, except your spared the conumdrum of having to be ready at all times by the fact that you cannot be. The danger is still there.
: I reckon most criminals owuld fall into the classifications of: 1:Too desperate to think about such things. 2:Experienced enough to know that people can't always have their gun on them.
1) they may not whip out their scientific calculators and proces probabilities but the vast majority of criminals will weigh up a situation before attacking - and if they think there is even a small chance of them getting shot it can put them off. Thats no reason for a gun armed fellow to run naked through the streets of the bronx and expect to get through ofcourse. 2) and experience enough to know thats its not worth testing that theory.
: Plus we have to look at the rules of reasonable force- to threaten to kill an attempted assualter is excessive force.
I understand that whilst British law tends to be reasonable when it comes to court, there is a tendecy for people to who defend themselves to be treated as the criminal if you dont do your lawful duty and an englishamn and die (leaving sufficient evidence for CID if possible)
Oh but you do, theyre just no talked about. Look through your nationals and you'll see a few armed robberies, then again in locals, then again in net news services. - especially in gang to gang conflict.
: Its more pragmatisim than principle.
Its very dangerous too, when the previous knife man buys an illegal gun whilst his victims suddenly become easy prey.
: No, but other such things aren't designed to kill.
So theyre ok ? And the fact that crims can get guns and you cant is ok?
Is that a play on words ("bang")? then a woman shooting a rapist as he attcks is ok, a man shooting the gang of hoodlums (i like that word) whove beaten him and his friend and who might carry on until he is dead is ok?
: Indeeed, hopefully under socialism they'll all get recycled.
Except for the ones kept in the cellars by folk who think "well, maybe if I just keep the one, you never know"
: Surely though, this undermines your own argument, and frankly is my oiwn, that the two are not related, so why bother having legal firearms, they do no good. All your stats will show is that poverty and economic conditioons are more responsible for deaths than guns, crack that, and guns become superfluos, irrelevent.
What it shows is that regardless of the amount of crime, the gun density is not the cause and however lovely it would be to reduce crime you still retain the right to self defence - if anything it says that in higher crime areas having a gun is more likely to help.
: Indeed, but I don't think guns are a tool of defence, ranged weapons aren't- and lets not forget reasonable force.
Maybe you have a basis for our earlier concern over whats acceptable. Most guns (especially handguns) are not really ranged (unless your one of the now unemployed british target shooters)