Quote:
Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Well other coutnries have very few deaths (like England like 100-1000 a year, other european nations less than 500 for sure, some even less than 100) due to guns.
Thats mainly because the criminals don't have the guns and neither do the populace. It works for them.
|
If you are relying on the example of European nations to bolster your arguement, you are in for a disappointment.
In Switzerland, every able bodied man is required by law to do a stint in the army and the army reserves. In addition, they keep their
fully automatic weapons in their homes, both during service and after they leave. Is there a crime wave in Switzerland?
No.
According to the
Swiss Consulate, there were 66 homicides and attempted homicides in Switzerland in 1998.
Contrast this with England, a country with some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.
The International Crime Victims Survey, based on 34,000 telephone interviews across 17 countries, found that 26 per cent of people - more than one in four - in England and Wales had been victims of crime in 1999. The figure for Scotland was 23 per cent and in Northern Ireland 15 per cent.
(Read the full
London Telegraph Article)
These two extremes show that the number of guns available to the populace is NOT the determining factor in the level of gun violence.
In the United States, this is bourne out by the examples of Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angles, all cities that severely restrict gun ownership and all cities with high murder rates.
Quote:
America - too many guns are out there already. And honestly the argument of "military and police" having guns and making a police state all depends on the gov't's thinking.
If we elect a sane man it wouldn't happen.
|
Saddam Hussein was an elected leader in a democratic society, as was Slobidan Melosavich and Adolph Hitler.
Just because we hope it won't happen, doesn't mean it can't or won't.
Quote:
Besides, honestly, would YOU shoot at police/military if there was a police state or martial law or whatever you want it to be?
Most "right" people wouldn't anyways despite having guns so thats somewhat irrelevant.
|
Honestly?
If you were one of Hussein's terror police raping my wife or daughter, yes, I would shoot you in a heartbeat.
But honestly, it could
never happen in a 'civilized' first world country, right? Say Chekoslovakia? Or Germany?
Quote:
|
Guns for defense are only useful if the guy owning the gun is responsible and knows how to use it. And its responsiblity that really matters. Leaving it in an unlocked locker is hardly responsible when there are kids around.
|
Finally, something we agree upon.
Quote:
Oh and I'd like to mention that those cases you listed - there are many more where the gunfire exchange leads to the guy trying to defend. There are many many grocery store / liquor store robberies where the owner tries to get a gun and ends up dying. Home invasions as well where they challenge there are man yas well.
You only hear about the heroes - but many more probably get injured, and sometimes its the kids getting hurt which is even worse imo.
|
Statistics do not bear you out.
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
(Read the
FULL ARTICLE)
Further more, homicide rates are as low as they have been since the 1960's:
(Source:
US Dept. of Justice)
This inspite of more guns.
As to firearm deaths, there were 30,708 firearm related deaths in 1998 (US pop= 270,248,003). Of these, 17,424 were suicides, 11,798 were homicides, 866 were accidents and 304 were legal killings. (Crunch your own numbers at the
Center for Disease Control.)
By this data alone, you can see that overwhelmingly, there are far more defensive uses of guns than deaths, and DGU's
dwarf the number of accidental deaths.
Quote:
|
Hell thats even why police repeatedly say "just wait for the police and don't try to fight" because there are so many incidents where people try and they end up the victims.
|
Oh yes, the "Call 911 and let the police handle it" strategy.
Did you know that the police are NOT legally obligated to help you when you call 911 or otherwise?
This has been determined by:
-Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5
-Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
-Westbrooks v. State (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674
-Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
-Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240
-Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332
Note that all these cited cases are from California, but I can dig up others as well. (I just wanted the California cases since you hail from LA and expect LA's finest to protect you
)
Anyway, please feel free to read the summary of these cases
HERE.
Quote:
|
Of course all of this would be irrelevent if criminals didn't have guns and people didnt' as well. to get to that point though some type of measure has to be done in the beginning to stop providing criminals with it - which imo is much more important.
|
I reject this arguement as I did before by saying that with the invention and ease of availabilty of the gun, a weak person no longer must feel helpless against a stronger person.