Originally posted by rshubert
Beetle, you talk about the quiet and isolation of your village, and the low crime rate that seems to convince you that you don't need any form of self-protection. All well and good.
But what about the poor schmuck who lives in Edinborough, or Glasgow, and is faced with the criminal element there? Why should that person be denied the right to self protection? It is already evident that the police can't prevent the crimes and protect the life of the victim.
I didn't say I didn't need any form of self protection. I said I don't need a gun. It's not the same thing.
I do feel that the home occupier should be free to use whatever force is necessary to ward off an attack from outside, without fear of prosecution, even if that results in the death of the intruder.
The problem with where I see you coming from is that there is no way to arm law abiding people without simultaneously arming the criminal classes. Statistics from around the world show that countries which allow the free supply of handguns also have the highest homicide rates and the highest level of violent crime - USA and South Africa. In recent weeks, there was rioting in
dozens of cities across France. Only one person died, and he was not shot. But in 1992 when similar violence erupted in the USA, around forty people died, most of them shot, and that was in only ONE city.
The trouble with arming citizens is that despite the obvious pleasure that so many people on this board get from owning/shooting guns, many others do not want to be armed and are therefore put at greater risk. I have many friends in the US who are not connected with this board, and only one owns a gun even though he doesn't want to. That total includes two women I know who live alone in New York - one on the upper west and one in midtown. The guy who does own a gun lives not far from Oxnard,CA. He bought his gun because of a one man crime wave that was happening in his neighbourhood many years ago. He tried it out shortly after buying it, and then returned it to its box where it has remained in the 15 years since. Clearly these people are at a disadvantage, given that your criminals have easy access to guns, whether through not owning a gun or not being in current practice. But you have to accept that many people simply do not want to go out, weekend after weekend, shooting at beer cans just to stay in practice, should the need arise.
In 2004, 57 heavily armed US police officers were killed in the line of duty, 17 of those in arrest situations. 54 of these 57 officers were shot dead, even though 31 of them were wearing body armour.
In 2005 in the UK, ONE officer was shot dead, and she was unarmed. Some people equate being armed to being safe. But as the homicide stats of the UK and US police forces show, this is not the case.
