Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Err I'm afraid the likelyhood of being shot and killed, or killed, or the victim of any crime whatsoever is inumerably higher in the USA than the UK, i'll stick to the UK's record I think.

According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales.

From here.

To match numbers, from here, assuming violent crime is equal to violence against the person, in 2009, the UK crime rare was 160 per 100k, the US crime rate ~429 per 100k. Slightly less than 4x.

Homicide rate in 2000-1 was 5.6 vs 1.4 per 100k, again, about 4x.

Which is to say "innumerable" is about the worst word you could use there. The statistics are pretty direct; you're looking at about a 4x chance of violent crime, which has been steadily trending downward in both countries. Yeah, that's still in UK's favor, but don't overstate the facts of the matter.

In both cases you're considerably less likely to be a victim of a crime than in, say, somewhere like Honduras.

[Loud Whispers]

they might try to take away our tinfoil hats next!

Revolution.

[Sheb]

Nadaka, most (I think all) European country allow the ownership of hunting rifles/shotguns. Sure, you need a permit, and the regulation are strict, but we're not outlawing hunting.

Gun crime is a thing because it's much more likely to end up in death/serious injuries than other kind of crimes. Sure, you may be safer as an individual if you own a gun, because of deterrence and such. But a society with lots of guns is much more dangerous, because suddenly you have a lot of situation that can degenerate into shooting.

The only reasons you need a gun for self-defense (Instead of a taser or mace or whatever) is because you're aggressor is much more likely to have a gun as well. And that mean a burglary can degenerate into a manslaughter.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If someone is trying to rob you then they are accepting the risk that you will shoot them, and are solely responsible for whatever happens to them in the course of their criminal activities.

[Loud Whispers]

If someone is trying to rob you then they are accepting the risk that you will shoot them, and are solely responsible for whatever happens to them in the course of their criminal activities.

And if someone is shot, and the only witness is the shooter and they say they were robbed, what then?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If someone is trying to rob you then they are accepting the risk that you will shoot them, and are solely responsible for whatever happens to them in the course of their criminal activities.

And if someone is shot, and the only witness is the shooter and they say they were robbed, what then?

The police have investigative branches for a reason.

[ChairmanPoo]

...IIRC most domestic shootings did not, in fact, involve criminals. The "increased security" from owning a gun is less obvious than it might seem.

[Nadaka]

Nadaka, most (I think all) European country allow the ownership of hunting rifles/shotguns. Sure, you need a permit, and the regulation are strict, but we're not outlawing hunting.

Gun crime is a thing because it's much more likely to end up in death/serious injuries than other kind of crimes. Sure, you may be safer as an individual if you own a gun, because of deterrence and such. But a society with lots of guns is much more dangerous, because suddenly you have a lot of situation that can degenerate into shooting.

More than 90% of gunshot victims survive in the US.

The only reasons you need a gun for self-defense (Instead of a taser or mace or whatever) is because you're aggressor is much more likely to have a gun as well. And that mean a burglary can degenerate into a manslaughter.

This is objectively untrue. You may need a gun for self defense in any case where your attacker has any advantage you can not match. Tazers and mace won't stop everyone, particularly not if you are outnumbered.

[Virex]

...IIRC most domestic shootings did not, in fact, involve criminals. The "increased security" from owning a gun is less obvious than it might seem.

How does that work? Doesn't assault or criminal negligence make one a criminal?

[Frumple]

Probably referring to folks with a criminal record. Alternately, most in-home violence, unsurprisingly, comes from folks living there, not folks breaking in.

There's also accidental shootings, of course. One of the reasons that some people in the states are for stricter controls (so there's a stronger assurance people owning guns actually know what the blazes they're doing.).

[Virex]

There's also accidental shootings, of course.

Most cases of that fall under criminal negligence, no? Someone has to remove the safety after all. Of course there are exceptions (say, a kid memorizes the code to the safe, takes the gun out to play with it), but most cases of domestic shooting are because someone either left the gun somewhere where kids have easy access to it, or because someone was being tough/fake threatening/masochistic.

[Sheb]

More than 90% of gunshot victims survive in the US.

Your point?

This is objectively untrue. You may need a gun for self defense in any case where your attacker has any advantage you can not match. Tazers and mace won't stop everyone, particularly not if you are outnumbered.

Yes, but a gun only give you an advantage if your aggressor doesn't have one as well.
The problem with unregulated gun ownership is that a lot of bad guys get guns as well.

[Flying Dice]

More than 90% of gunshot victims survive in the US.

Your point?

Obviously the situation is perfectly fine if most of the victims aren't killed outright.

[Nadaka]

Having a gun does give you an advantage even if your aggressor has one, simply because it is very obviously dangerous and the attacker must consider if the risk of grievous injury or death is worth whatever he wants from you.

[Andir]

Note, i'm an athiest so I prefer to follow the rule of reason above the previous contenders.

Then why do you find it reasonable to take away something because of how a minority of people use it?

I enjoy shooting as a sport.  I don't hunt.  I don't kill people.  I keep my guns locked and secure at all times.  It's a tool, like a car.  More people are killed in auto related incidents per year than guns.  Just because you think that guns are not required to live day to day does not make them any more "nonsense" than knifes, cars, or baseball bats.