Post by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comPost by d***@aol.comPost by ColPost by soupdragonPost by unknown(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
The more usual figure is per 100k of population.
Viz
Accidental gun deaths in the US 0.59/100k
Accidental gun deaths in Scotland 0.02/100k
[Source: Krug and Kaiser 2004]
If you go to the US, you're 30 times more likely to be accidentally
shot than in Scotland, so come to Scotland instead.
This message was brought to you by the Scottish Tourist Board.
Our Colonial cuzs are in an other dimension . Mental cut off when it
comes to lethal weapons am afraid . Far too lax in control . Get
real
.
Not really. You need to remember we have millions upon millions of
guns and a large segment of our popultaion wants to keep it that way.
Since there are all those guns out there, our criminals are very
likely to have guns. Would we be better off if all handguns suddenly
disappeared tomorrow? Probably, but until/unless that happens, i'd
like to be able to arm myself if i believe it's necessary.
Tht's the problem - so does everyone else.
That's kind of the idea.
Did I miss out the bit about the statistical probabillity of anything
involving human error?
More cars then bigger total of accidents by human error.
More aircraft, more gadgets in the home,
and so on?
No, but that doesn't change my point.
There is only one point in such debates.
Guns are offensive weapons. No more and no less.
Thus claiming they are carried for defense is a lie.
That's your opinion.
Not the point but what if it is?
Guns can be...and most certainly are...used in
self-defense.
It is not possible for a gun to be used in self defence.
Just because you declare it not to be so doesn't change
anything.
Of course it does not change anything because, being true, it cannot.
Facts are chiels whit willna ding.
A gun is designed to harm or kill if used. It is thus an offensive weapon.
It is the job description of all, and any, weapon.
Best that can be said of any weapon, whether it be a nuclear bomb or a club,
is that it, "MAY", also constitute a deterant to attacks.
You still can use a weapon to defend against an attack. If you
shoot the attacker, you have defended yourself.
No you haven't, what you have done is counter attacked the person who
attacked you first.
If you had defended yourself, you would have protected yourself with some
form of armour, evaded the attack or dodged and removed yourself from harms
way.
If you draw a weapon that is an offensive counter attack.
Here are the definitions of, -
weapon / n.
1 a thing designed or used or usable for inflicting bodily harm (e.g. a gun
or cosh).
2 a means employed for trying to gain the advantage in a conflict (irony is
a double-edged weapon).
weaponed adj. (also in comb.).
weaponless adj.
[Old English wæp(e)n, from Germanic]
Here are the definitions for -
defend // v.tr. (also absol.)
1 (often foll. by against, from) resist an attack made on; protect (a person
or thing) from harm or danger.
2 support or uphold by argument; speak or write in favour of.
3 conduct the case for (a defendant in a lawsuit).
4 compete to retain (a title) in a contest.
5 absol. (in various sports and games) try to prevent the opposition scoring
goals, points, etc.; resist attacks.
defendable adj.
defender n.
[Middle English via Old French defendre from Latin defendere: cf. offend]
Post by d***@aol.comYou don't seem to be taking into account a few things.
First, criminals tend to be inherently lazy...if they weren't they'd
just get a real job...and will go after the easiest targets possible.
Quite untrue. laziness may not be even be a factor. Desperation, poverty,
unemployment figures, mental illness, need for medical help for a loved one
in a society that will not provide it, could all be factors that drive
someone to armed, or unarmed, crime.
"Tend to be..."
Then cite figures to show it is no more than opinion?
Post by d***@aol.comAlso, criminals tend to carry the most easily concealable weapons
which tend to be small handguns.
Utter speculation, for example gangsters often go for much greater fire
power.
As do drug pushers and suppliers.
And the average person is in very little danger from gangsters and
pushers. They tend to stick tot hemselves and tend to fight and kill
each other. They know that if they start attacking "regular" people,
the police get much more interested.
That point about the average person is what this thread is all about.
Going by actual figures the fact is that the average in Scotland where guns
are controlled is some way below the average for the USA where they are not.
From that there were several claims the free use of weapons goes for a less
violent criminal average that obviously do not hold water.
The point that carrying a weapon of any kind is a secondard one but, again,
the facts do not bear that contention out.
Just check out the meanings of, "weapon", "defence","deterant", and,
"counter attack".
Post by d***@aol.comThird, your average criminal is a
druggie and can't shoot worth a crap.
Speculation again, there are more homicides carried out in the home and more
homacides done by people known to the victims.
That is true.
Post by d***@aol.comGun ownership as a deterrent has the same thought process as locking
your doors or cars. The idea being that if the criminal is looking for
a crime of opportunity, they will go for the easiest mark. Why break
into a locked car when there's an unlocked one right up the street?
Why break into a house with a security system when the next door
neighbor doesn't have one?
A deterant is quite another matter to a defensive object.
A suit of armour is defensive and may be a deterrant.
A bulglar alarm is defensive as are castles, moats, high walls, flood
lights. et al.
Guns are only an offensive weapon and may, only may, be a used to deter.
We just have a different definition of defense.
Do you?
From Merriman-Websters -
1d·fense noun
antonym of "offense,"
Definition of DEFENSE
1a : the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out
in defense of justice> b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2a : capability of resisting attack b : defensive play or ability <a player
known for good defense>
3a : means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or
another; also : a defensive structure b : an argument in support or
justification c : the collected facts and method adopted by a defendant to
protect and defend against a plaintiff's action d : a sequence of moves
available in chess to the second player in the opening
4a : a defending party or group (as in a court of law) <the defense rests> b
: a defensive team
5: the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms
production <appropriations for defense> <defense contract>
- de·fense·less \-l?s\ adjective
- de·fense·less·ly adverb
- de·fense·less·ness noun
Post by d***@aol.comLet's face it, if a competent criminal
wants your car, etc he can get it....but most criminals aren't very
competent and don't want to work too hard to get their next crack rock
or oxy pill.
The idea a gun will deter is an illusion - first up you get arrested if it
is on display it in public.
Not so.
Very much so. If you can be killed or assaulted without chance to defend
yourself then you are not able to defend yourself.
Anyone you cannot see, but who can see you, may take you by surprise.
Anyone getting a weapon ready before you may take you out.
Anyone who attacks you that you do not expec may take you our.
A gun in your pocket is thus no defense agains anything if you need to
counter attack after they attack you and can only be used to counter attack
if the attacker missed and fails to get you first.
Let me put it another way.
If you draw a weapon first then you are the attacker.
If you draw a weapon after someone attacks you you are counter attacking.
If you both draw at once then you are both attackers and none of you are
defenders.
Ddeterring is not either defence nor attack.
At its simplest it is two belligerant numpties rattling sabers and glowering
at each other and trying to frighten each other into not attacking each
other..
Post by d***@aol.comSo the intended attacker does not see a gun.
Even if true, the fact that you may well be armed is a deterrent.
Criminals tend to go after those perceived as "soft' targets.
Post by d***@aol.comThen, if the attacker thinks they have a better/bigger gun they will chaance
their hand.
Not if they have good reason to believe the next guy coming along
won't be armed.
So just how, by your way of it, is some drug befuddled person, in utter
desperation for the next fix
, supposed to decide who may, or may not, be carrying a weapon?
Then, how is the guy with the concealed weapon to know when to draw that
weapon, to counter attack a drug defuddled junkie, when the next guy along
is edgy about possible junkie attack and will probably grab his gun on
seeing the first guy draw a weapon so shoots him down?
Classic situation, Eh! So the first guy is about to shoot the suspected
junkie, but the second guy guns down the first guy and the suspected junkie
attacker turns out to be an undercover cop. Who calls in the double shooting
he has just witnessed.
Post by d***@aol.comThe guy concealed behind the pillar in the multi-car park hopes to take you
by surprise.
Yes, and if you are armed, you have another option to defend
yourself.
You cannot defend yourself by use of a weapon - you can only either attack
with it or counter attack with it.
Post by d***@aol.comOr any of the other common ways to kill/rob or injure someone.
All the gun does is make you feel safe when you are not. It can only deter
if the other guy sees it pointed at him and you don't walk around pointing
guns at people or the police swat squad take you down.
In most cases the person being attacked is dead, or wounded, before they
know they are being attacked.
But that isn't true. Many robberies, muggings, etc can be seen
coming. They're not by any means all ambushes.
Indeed, they are not but how do you really know?
You see it coming, or think you do, draw a weapon and kill someone who turns
out to be an innocent guy looking for directions but very nervious because
he sees it coming, or thinks he does, from you?.
Post by d***@aol.comI've read your arguments that if you have a gun the guy who wants
to kill you will just get a bigger one. The problem with that is that
very few of us have people who want to kill us.
Does that matter when the motives may be nothing to do with you as a person?
Usually, someone wanting to kill a specific individual is not a
random crime.
You mentioned random crime, not I.
In actual fact what you have described is not a random crime - it is a
premeditated crime against a random victim.
That is why you thought you could see it coming.
Post by d***@aol.comThe overwhelming
danger from criminals are druggies looking for an easy target to get
their next score.
Speculation again - There could be any number of things an attacker might
wish to rob you for.
At least half...some studies have shown nearly 75%..of our crime
is drug related.
That's not the same thing, either.
What is the relationship?
A dealer killing a pusher?
A drug deal between two dealers gone wrong?
A wife killing a junkie husband who threatens their child?
An armed citizen killing a person he suspected was a junkie going to attack
him?
Or any of the other 101 scenes that could be drug related?
Post by d***@aol.comA problem we have is that way too many of these
criminals have guns and are more than willing to use them. Unless you
are similarly armed, you have very little chance against them.
Unless you are walking around with a gun in your hand the attacker can kill
you before you know you are under attack.
"Can"....which they can also do if you're unarmed.
R-i-g-h-t!
If they kill you with the initial attack, or before you counter attack,
then you are dead anyway.
Your only chance is if they miss with that initial attack and even then
their chances of getting off further shots are way above yours.
So, unless you walk around with a gun in your hand. the odds are with a
attacker with a pre-meditated desire to attack either you or a random
victim.
If you do walk around with a weapon in your hand then you have declared
open-season upon yourself.
Post by d***@aol.comFurthermore, even with a gun in your pocket you could be swatted on the head
from behind with a 4"X2", and your belongings, including the gun, fall into
the hands of a guy who will then use it for crime.
Same as above.
Post by d***@aol.comDoes a
gun make sure you won't be a crime victim? Of course not, but it does
give you another option to add to run like hell or hope the criminal
is feeling nice and won't hurt you.
That's the illusion. The guy about to attack knows and is ready, you are
not. A gun is an offensive weapon and a bulletproof vest is a deffensive
armour.
So, you don't think it gives you another option? You don't think
anyone, especially a woman or elderly person, with a gun has a better
chance of defending themselves than an unarmed person?
R-i-g-h-t!
The only options you have, with any weapon, is to either attack with it or
counter attack with it, and neither are defensive.
The only real protection that you have is if the initial attacker fails with
a first attack and even with such a failure they are still one jump ahead as
they have both the benefit of surprise and a weapon alreadt in their hand.
Do you really think that a guy with a gun who misses with his first shot has
a slower reaction than the guy still to draw a weapon.
Measure just how long it takes anyone to realise they are under attack and
then reach for, draw, get the safety off and fire a hurried shot.
Then how long for a guy with a weapon in his hand to loose of a second,
third and fourth shot.
So the gun makes you feel safe but you are not.