: Contrasting Holistic to Specificty is misleading, the specific situations make up teh holistic model.
Yippee, and you accept that society is only the individuals that make it up - hurrah! ;-)
: I am precisely saying that overall, the number of lives saved may nmot be of sufficient benefit to bother basing public order policy on private gun ownership.
In no way barring them ofcourse. Consider: in Orlando, Florida, as we know by now, a massive increase in the number of rapes was halted and reversed by the expedient of offering classes in firearms-handling to several thousand women over one long, hot summer (see Paxton Quigley's Armed and Female for details).
: No, you're avoiding the point- in America you allready have Private Gun Ownership Can you show crime to be significantly lower than countries which do not-
Observe the above example
: if you then look at the different economic conditions can you find factors which might make economics the determining factor in crime? Clearly, America does not have less crime despite widespread private ownership of weapons.
Where is the control model - an America without guns to prove this contention? Except in examples such as the Orlando one.
: Thats the situation we have here, and crime rates are still lower than in the US.
Now its your turn to avoid the point, just because less people in britain get killed doesnt mean its ok to bar the means to self defence - its like saying "hey, its not like youre walking in the Bronx here, if you get killed you'd have to be real unlucky". Its still disarming victims, just because there are less victims is not an issue, there are no 'acceptable losses'
: British police aren't armed, and you're taking refuge in Hypothetics when I specifically challeneged you with the Actuality of American crime despite Gun Ownership.
Im responding with one off situations, as you have done in this thread.
: No, because the most through research shows that eocnomic conditions cause crime, thus the best way, holistically is to reduce crime by improving living conditions.
Which in no way is an argument for banning guns. I'm sure people would love to have less crime, but then disarming them because its *less* wont help at all.
: No, being a trained Martial Artists means you are permenantly in posession of an offensive weapon- we are not permitted to carry any offensive weapon (Baseball bats sell by the ton here, but no bugger plays, Cricket bats are unweildy weapons), the usual burden of guilt is reversed for weapons offenses, we have to proove it wasn't being carried as a
Fist sign of fascism - guilty until proved innocence becomes law. Popular support is expressed "well, why would you need it, what have you got to hide" etc.
: Perhaps it was considered too obvious to mention?
It is obvious, but I think if we were to witness a car accident I would say the Ford pickup reversed into a volvo and you would report that the rover crashed into the side of the minibus.
: if, for instance, i killed my attacker, but it was shown I could have fled and called the police, I'd be knacked.
You can argue that the risk of fleeing was too great - ie you are not expected to die trying to escape if the alternative - responding in force - was less risky for you, rare situation i would imagine, but no less admissable.
: But such a premptive blow must be based upon sound reason to beleive there was a danger, and must be proprtional to the trheat- i.e. just enough to imoblise the assailant.
Enough to ensure your personal safety according to your reasonable judgment. If you got him with a steel bar and broke both his legs he might try and put you in jail claiming just a big bruise would have been enough - like you could guage that at the precise terror stricken moment.
: It matters, but the Reasonable Man is the bar by which your perception is measured, if a reasonable man could perceive....
Shame the reasonable man might be a fool, the law being an ass and all that.
: You wouldnt have to have one. feeling safer is not the same as being safer.
Pretty much, in public order terms, they are.
Feeling safe is a perception, actually being safe is an anlysis of probability. many people feel unsafe on an airplane but safe on a train - whilst the train is demonstrably more risky.