Sorry if I misquoted you, Miisa. I was just agreeing with the point that in a society where a robber/burglar may be likely to encounter firearms, he is surely more likely to carry one himself. (I'm not suggesting all robbers are men here, either).
I went ahead and edited the thread title to reflect topic, as requested.
I hope no one thinks that by my responses I was advocating gun ownership. As I said in my first post in this thread, guns terrify me, and I wish the US had much, much stricter gun control laws. I just find the idea that you could be prosecuted for defending yourself and your family (by whatever means) in your own home to be...strange.
You can't, not really, unless your actions are disproportionate. For example, knocking someone out by sneaking up behind them, chaining them to a radiator and then beating the shit out of them would be disproportionate. Firing a shot into their leg with a rifle probably wouldn't.
Sorry if I misquoted you, Miisa.
No, no, you didn't misquote me, I didn't say what I meant very well and it is difficult to quite understand what I was trying to pin down.
I really don't go for the self-defence garbage.
Reading through this again, I'd better just say also that I wasn't aiming this at anyone here - just at the usual excuses given by the pro-gun lobby.
:)
RE:
I posted this because it's the first pro-gun article that I've seen come out of a traditionally liberal mainstream publication: The Times Online.
Since it was interesting that The Times would editorialize on gun control, I thought it might be just as interesting to see how folks who live in Europe (especially Britain) would respond to the article - especially those which an anti-gun stance.
In the article, Mr. Munday states that the "...findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that (Britain) now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States..." , and this was made regarding the 'culture' in which violent crime operates. While it is true (according to the CDC) that 1,800 people under 19 years of age were killed with a firearm in 2004 (the last year where data was available), the CDC also found a reduction of 18% over previous 5 years when corrected for population growth. In this set of data, the vast majority of those killed were of the ages 15-19 (for a total of 1578 commisions of homicide). While any number of children killed is sad, a bit of perspective might be in order.
In the US in 2004, there were an estimated 20,736,755 people between the ages of 15 and 19. The percentage of death due to firearms (including suicide, accidental shooting, and homicide) were 0.014 %. If we further break down that number to those killed intentionally, it drops to 0.008%. If all age groups were queried on the CDC site, the breakdown remains the same at 0.013% deaths by firearms per population. Compare this to Britain, where the percentage published by the Home Office is less than 0.5% (how much less, they don't say). Statistically, you are significantly more likely to be killed by a gun in Britain than you are in the US - and that from a country that has some very strict gun laws. And that was one of the points of the article by Munday - that there is a perception that the US, compared to Britain, is a dangerous place due to lax gun laws. The perception that the US is dangerous because of a 'culture' where guns are easily accessible is fundamentally flawed based upon the actual number of deaths related to firearms. I didn't see anyone respond directly to this point. Comparatively, those in the 15-19 age group in the US had approximately 5,400 deaths due to motor vehicle accidents (the number one reason for death in that age group) which is much higher in the US than it is in Europe. However, his article wasn't about kids and guns - which is where the anti-gun crowd wants to take the argument - it was about a culture of gun ownership.
His second point is this: In a 'culture' where gun laws are strict, the number of deaths due to firearms goes up statistically. Across the board, those areas (non-combat areas) that have strict gun laws have a higher incidence of violent crime in general, and violent crime via firearms in specific. No need to go into his data since he lists it inthe article, but no one has responded specifically to that, either. His point is that Britain is a more 'culturally' violent country than the US. And his argument is that removing the guns from the equation actually creates a culture where violence is tolerated. Correlation doesn't equal causation - however, his argument is: removing all other variables, including perception variables, those areas that went from a culture of 'anti-gun' to those of 'pro-gun' actually reduced violent and non-violent crime at a faster rate than those who stuck with an 'anti-gun' culture. And I've seen no one address that either.
Since I don't live in England (or greater Britain), I don;t have much knowledge regarding the culture there. However, I found the article interesting, nonetheless.
Arctain
... I just find the idea that you could be prosecuted for defending yourself and your family (by whatever means) in your own home to be...strange.
Indeed it is strange but it doesn't happen in Britain. We are allowed to defend ourselves without fear of being prosecuted. This is not the same as killing someone in order to defend the holiday photos. We are not allowed to do that.
If I became aware of a burglar in my house, I would first arm myself with a broom handle - I don't have a baseball bat - and then order him to get out. But if I were to thwack him over the head in anger and seriously injure him as he was leaving, I could be charged with using unnecessary force. If, however, he confronted me and appeared to threaten me with physical violence, I would be entitled to defend myself without fear of being prosecuted.
There have been high profile cases, most notoriously Tony Martin who shot and killed a burglar in the back as he was leaving. He was charged with murder. This has led quite wrongly to the assumption that we might be prosecuted if we defend ourselves or our families. That is simply not true. The policy in Britain is to balance the use of force with the perceived risk.
Thanks, that makes everything clearer...and less strange. :)
... I just find the idea that you could be prosecuted for defending yourself and your family (by whatever means) in your own home to be...strange.
Indeed it is strange but it doesn't happen in Britain. We are allowed to defend ourselves without fear of being prosecuted. This is not the same as killing someone in order to defend the holiday photos. We are not allowed to do that.
If I became aware of a burglar in my house, I would first arm myself with a broom handle - I don't have a baseball bat - and then order him to get out. But if I were to thwack him over the head in anger and seriously injure him as he was leaving, I could be charged with using unnecessary force. If, however, he confronted me and appeared to threaten me with physical violence, I would be entitled to defend myself without fear of being prosecuted.
There have been high profile cases, most notoriously Tony Martin who shot and killed a burglar in the back as he was leaving. He was charged with murder. This has led quite wrongly to the assumption that we might be prosecuted if we defend ourselves or our families. That is simply not true. The policy in Britain is to balance the use of force with the perceived risk.
Its the same here.
I just posted in another area an article about the Dawson College Shooting that happened exactly one year ago today. Right now we still have gun Control in this country, but Our current Prime Minister is a Poodle for the American Gun Control lobby, and he is doing his best to get rid of it. It is, however, a minority government, and so far he hasn't repealed gun control.
I wouldn't call the Times a liberal paper, myself :)
The Times is one of Rupert Murdoch's papers. It has always been a conservative newspaper AFAIK, but now it is in the service of Rupert's agenda for the world (or at least the English speaking world).
The Times is one of Rupert Murdoch's papers. It has always been a conservative newspaper AFAIK, but now it is in the service of Rupert's agenda for the world (or at least the English speaking world).
Of course, in present-day (American, at least) right-wing lingo, merely being a paper or a journalist is apparently qualification enough to be labeled "liberal". ;)