Originally Posted By: chrisri
Fact is that homicides by 100k people are heights in US (3.5 death). In Croatia, a country that fought war on their own soil, and has individuals of questionable stability (some war veterans and war affected civilians) still has 1.1 homicide by 100k people. In France, Italy and Germany it's below 1%.
You say that you wouldn't feel as safe without means for self-protection. What about your wife? Does she carry a firearm while shopping with her friends? Do you give a gun to your 5 year old when you drop him/her at a kindergarten?
How will they protect themselves?
I'm not saying guns should be outlawed in US. I couldn't care less. It's your country.
I was just saying that simplicity of acquiring a hand weapon (legally) in US sometimes leads to a homicides that could be avoided if procedure for getting one was more strict.
Canadian model looks good to me. Individual can have a permit to carry a handgun for protection, but only after a serious evaluation of individual requiring permit is established. After initial permission a biannual reevaluation should be performed.
A 70 year old with Alzheimer shouldn't be able to carry a gun on a grunts of permit he was given 40 years ago.
In a worst kind scenario when you actually need a gun for self protection you have only 40% of surviving a gun shooting. If we assume that criminal who is engaging on you has advantage of a surprise, and that that criminal can handle gun at least the same as you due to its nature of work, and that in US a criminal will take into consideration the fact that most of citizens will consume their right for carrying gun and self defend, 40% survivability is good estimate.
The fact is that you focus on statistics, and have formed an opinion, without regard to rights. So, let's examine both.
Statistics in different countries are counted differently. The U.S. counts rape as a violent crime. Many countries do not, so, the incidence of violent crime is difficult to compare. However, when crimes like rape are added in to the violent crime statistics of Europe, it turns out that Europe, and England, have higher violent crime than the U.S.
You don't want to believe that because you are bombarded by our news. But it's quite clear that our news entities are not interested in balanced reporting, if they ever were, because they need to compete for mouse clicks, air time, papers sold, and so the sensationalize everything, including crime statistics.
The "epidemic" of gun violence in the U.S.? The rate of gun violence has been on the decline for 30 years now. It continues to go down. It went down when we banned "assault rifles"...and when the ban was repealed, it went down some more. This fact, easily available, for example, here, from our own DOJ:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
does not sell papers, or air time, or mouse clicks...the only thing you can conclude is that when the number of guns in the U.S. went from about 100 million to about 300 million, gun crime rates decreased.
Ironically, most gun crime is committed with handguns, yet rifles continue to dominate the discussion. Rifles are generally owned by law-abiding citizens, and they are used in less than 1% of crimes involving firearms.
Still, to those ignorant of how a rifle works, or how firearms are employed, the rifle seems scary and of no "legitimate" purpose...so it's viewed as the most easy to ban and restrict.
Speaking of restrictions, you wouldn't get this from the media either: in the U.S., you can't own a full automatic gun, or a shotgun or rifle with a shortened barrel, or explosive devices. You can't own a gun if your a convicted felon, or have a conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence (so, there goes the "moment of anger" argument, we already addressed that in U.S. law), or a mentally deficient.
Now, wouldn't it be a good idea to check for these things and prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them? We have a universal background check for anyone buying from a dealer. But with over 400,000 attempted illegal purchases last year, our DOJ elected to prosecute only a dozen. Interesting...if we don't enforce that law, then is it really a law? "Straw" purchase is a federal offense, and never prosecuted. Klebold and Harris at Columbine High School were underage...so they used a straw purchaser...Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, who bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine for them, thus committing a felony in one of the worst, high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. She plea bargained and never served any jail time.
Good law. Abysmally enforced. Clearly, great room for improvement in public safety here...
In your 3.5 death per 100,000 statistic, you've included both suicides and gang on gang violence. Both distort the picture. 60% of the "gun deaths" in the U.S. are suicide. Those aren't the fault of the gun, and while suicide is tragic, it isn't the fault of the gun. The Japanese, for example, kill themselves at twice the rate that U.S. folks so...without guns...so it really isn't a "gun" issue.
That drives the U.S rate down to 1.4 per 100,000, using your numbers...which is about the Croatian rate...
Take out our gang on gang violence in five key U.S. cities, the violence responsible for over half of our deaths by firearm, and the U.S. becomes 0.7 per 100,000...far safer than Croatia, or anywhere else in the EU. Safer by far, than the U.K.
But that's only homicides...what about violent crime? Again, the U.S. statistics are about the same as other developed countries...safer than many, though it's difficult to compare because we consider many things violent that other countries, yes, even Canada, does not. So, Canadians look at their statistics and think that Canada is less violent...well, no, the counting is simply different...and against a violent felon, a firearm is often the only thing that makes you able to defend yourself.
That's the whole point of the Second Amendment. Self defense. Defense of the individual...as well as the collective defense of the state, which, in 1776, was a big deal for us...
Now, let's talk about the ridiculous things that you said; my 5 year old? seriously?. I never said that I wouldn't feel safe without a gun. I said that I have that right. I said that the firearms is the only reasonable means for self-defense in the vast majority of cases. I said that you only feel safe, because in point of fact, you remain restricted in your exercise of that right of self defense.
And that's really the point: the right. You have a right to self defense...but no practical means by which to exercise it. Kind of like having the right to vote...but you're not allowed to approach the ballot box...or the only choices on the ballot are the Communist Party members...sure, you've got the right...in a pig's eye!
This country was founded on the idea of liberty. Of individual rights granted by a higher power. Of a government that derives its power by consent of the governed. Where individuals are responsible for their own success or failure.
But, there are lots of folks who don't like that. They don't want to take responsibility for their own success, or failure, or safety.
Your 40% of the time statistic is specious...as well as irrelevant. If a motorcycle helmet only worked 40% of the time, it's my right to choose whether or not to wear it.
In fact, defensive uses of a firearm happen between 400,000 (liberal numbers) and 2,500,000 (conservative numbers) times per year in the U.S. Far more effective than the 40% that you quote. But the percentage isn't the point. The point is this: those people had the right, and the means, to defend themselves.
They live in liberty.
Sadly, most of the world's population doesn't...and is content to be deceived by sensational misrepresentation instead of facing the stark reality of their powerlessness and bondage enacted by their own government, often with their consent.
