Is this the way to treat a Mugger?

[MMI]

Any I way I add it up from any reputable scource it comes up the same for me.

It's not your arithmetic I have trouble with. I think I have hinted enough that I have no sympathy for anyone who receives rough justice as a result of his misdeeds. What I am beating my particular drum about is, firearms are so dangerous they should only be allowed to be handled by specific people: the armed forces, the police in incidents where firearms are being/may be used, and private citizens who can satisfy stringent licensing rules.

I do not doubt any of the figures you have quoted (and I saw the ones you have included in your last message while I was looking for the Southwark article). It confirms that there is a lot of gun crime in USA, but I'm not so sure it justifies the habitual carrying of guns for self-protection, nor even private ownership of guns. My eye was caught by the footnote which indicates that in 65% of the incidents where victims of crime defended themselves with a gun, the offender was unarmed or not armed with a gun. That's almost exactly two out of every three times where excessive force was apparently used, and that could - should - turn the "victim" into the criminal.

I've never understood what a boolean search is - I can't even pronounce the word! - and I've never challenged the veracity of the statistics you quoted: I can't, and I have to assumed they were rigorously checked before publication. It's not what the statistics said, but the interpretation of those figures that worries me, because I believe the research might have been limited, and that some of the facts you quoted mght have been interpreted differently from the way they were presented if the whole article was available.

For example, the article appears to conclude that people who defend themselves with guns are likely to escape an attack with little or no injury. If that's what the research proves, then so be it, but if it is then presented to support suggestions that all attackers should be repelled by armed force, I believe the information is being misapplied, and is in fact encouraging the excessive, and therefore illegal, use of firearms as a means of defence.

Criminals get the vast majority of their firearms from illegal scources (80%).

I know ... it's an even higher proportion over here. But that's no reason to abandon gun control: it's a reason to tighten it.

People that defend themselves with a fire arm have a much larger chance of survival compared to those that do not.

I think that is self-evident, but it does not mean an unarmed victim does not have a good chance of survival anyway.

IMHO the reliability of an objective scource (especially a .gov or .edu scource from a boolean search of acredited rescources) isnt in question nor is thier "selective and meaningless statistics".

Of course I can understand why gun control advocates wish to say ( given the wieght of those statistics that didnt support thier argument) that the numbers are meaningless or selective..

" ... selective and meaningless without further information ..."

Perhaps my comments above explain why I said it

[denuseri]

It's not your arithmetic I have trouble with. I think I have hinted enough that I have no sympathy for anyone who receives rough justice as a result of his misdeeds. What I am beating my particular drum about is, firearms are so dangerous they should only be allowed to be handled by specific people: the armed forces, the police in incidents where firearms are being/may be used, and private citizens who can satisfy stringent licensing rules. (which I do as I have a license to carry)

I do not doubt any of the figures you have quoted (and I saw the ones you have included in your last message while I was looking for the Southwark article). It confirms that there is a lot of gun crime in USA, (and even more in a lot of countries that fully ban private citezens owning weapons or where the state has no control at all in third world countries etc where having a gun gives you license to be a thug) but I'm not so sure it justifies the habitual carrying of guns for self-protection, (if I dont have it with me when I need it whats the point of owning it at all?) nor even private ownership of guns. (Fortunately here I and the Surpreme Court, Constitution and Founding Fathers of my Government disagree with you.) My eye was caught by the footnote which indicates that in 65% of the incidents where victims of crime defended themselves with a gun, the offender was unarmed or not armed with a gun. That's almost exactly two out of every three times where excessive force (if it was escessive the statistic would have put the victum into the catagory of a crimminal and not be listed as it was but as you can see it didnt say excessive it said they confronted an ofender who was attacking them) was apparently used, and that could - should - turn the "victim" into the criminal.

I've never understood what a boolean search is ( A Boolean Searches allow you to combine words and phrases using the words AND, OR, NOT and NEAR (otherwise known as Boolean operators) to limit, widen, or define your search. Most Internet search engines and Web directories default to these Boolean search parameters anyway, but a good Web searcher should know how to use basic Boolean operators. Search engines such as Teoma allow you to search for date last modified and a variety of other advanced features. Google allows ~ to search for synonyms. The Government, Libraries, Universities and other academically minded proffessions have access to special data bases to use in conjuction with a boolean search that provide a higher degree of accurate or verifiable information.)

I can't even pronounce the word! - (its pronounced Bu-Lee-Anne) and I've never challenged the veracity of the statistics you quoted: I can't, and I have to assumed they were rigorously checked before publication. It's not what the statistics said, but the interpretation of those figures that worries me, because I believe the research might have been limited, and that some of the facts you quoted mght have been interpreted differently from the way they were presented if the whole article was available. (other than the Southwick Paper{the figures of which I double checked on my own} its not an article but actual official Department of Justice figues on file for anyone that wants to look them up)

For example, the article appears to conclude that people who defend themselves with guns are likely to escape an attack with little or no injury. If that's what the research proves, then so be it, (Plain and simply it is your odds of surviving unscathed are remarkably higher than if you had tried to defend yourself through other means or not at all, a fact that the anti-gun lobbies have gone to great lengths to put down and used thier influence to keep the general public from being made openly aware of becuase to figure it out you eaither have to be willing to reaserch it or be in law enforcement) but if it is then presented to support suggestions that all attackers should be repelled by armed force, I believe the information is being misapplied, and is in fact encouraging the excessive, and therefore illegal, use of firearms as a means of defence. (not at all it is encouraging/ I am encouraging: the legal use of firearms to defend oneself with appropriate force to the situation as determined by the United States Legal System!)



I know ... it's an even higher proportion over here. But that's no reason to abandon gun control: it's a reason to tighten it. (To what extent? To the extreme of banning guns entirely or only allowing the government to own them legally outside of a severly limited portion of the populace? So that only criminals will have such weapons? Since crimes are still committed in all countries regardless of weather or not they ban or have laws regulating gun ownership and a gun is your BEST form of defense, the only conclusion I can fathom from such logic is that you want -like the anti gun lobbyist eaither out of naivety or by design - the law abiding population involved to be eaither defensless or extremely limited in thier ability to defend themselves or thier loved ones and property from harm.)


I think that is self-evident, but it does not mean an unarmed victim does not have a good chance of survival anyway. (Good chance? {trys not to spit up my coffee} By far a better chance if they had been armed? I don't like to gamble with my life in such a manner. I would like the best possible odds on my side if in a situation where I am going to be possibly victumized by perpertrators intending to commit a violent crime, especially since I know what its like to survive as the helpless victum of heinous and unspeakable acts that I nor my loved ones effected by proximity to me, will never fully recover from and carry as a burden for the rest of our natural lives.)


" ... selective and meaningless without further information ..." (what more information do you need? Does some group of monsters have to rape and torture you for close to three months for you to figure it out too? I once thought as you did too btw)

Perhaps my comments above explain why I said it

Sadly what the only thing your comments (and those of too many others)have explained to me is that no ammount of logic or reason will convince a certian segment of the populace that they are being screwed over bigtime like sheep to slaughter. That when they believe (with an ironically religious like zealotry) the spew that the anti-gun lobby and thier partners in crime have been diligently spoon feeding them (like so many comunion waffers) they are really kneeling at the altar of a false utopian god. A god who's sole purpose is to eventually usher in the tyranny of a so called socialist totalitarian regime by cowing the people and robbing them of thier natural right to defend themselves were by ignorace or design.

[Belgarold]

Sadly what the only thing your comments (and those of too many others)have explained to me is that no ammount of logic or reason will convince a certian segment of the populace that they are being screwed over bigtime like sheep to slaughter. That when they believe (with an ironically religious like zealotry) the spew that the anti-gun lobby and thier partners in crime have been diligently spoon feeding them (like so many comunion waffers) they are really kneeling at the altar of a false utopian god. A god who's sole purpose is to eventually usher in the tyranny of a so called socialist totalitarian regime by cowing the people and robbing them of thier natural right to defend themselves were by ignorace or design.

I would be very careful about making personal attacks in the thread, it is frowned upon here. And your rabid attack of gun-control proponents simply serves to symbolize the stereotypes of those against ANY kind of gun control.

MMI has said that the gun-control he sees is not to the degree that you are predicting, and most gun-control advocates do not adhere to. Mongering fear is "the spew" that the NRA have been 'spoon-feeding' to their members and their lobbyists for years. And I need to ask a question, "Is it criminal to want gun control?" I wonder when that law came into being.

[Thorne]

MMI has said that the gun-control he sees is not to the degree that you are predicting, and most gun-control advocates do not adhere to. Mongering fear is "the spew" that the NRA have been 'spoon-feeding' to their members and their lobbyists for years. And I need to ask a question, "Is it criminal to want gun control?" I wonder when that law came into being.

No, it is not criminal to want real gun control, as opposed to actually banning guns for all but a very select few, as proposed by MMI. Gun control means just that: controlling who can own firearms. But limiting it to only the military, some police and a few farmers is not control, but banning. That leaves the average citizen without any means of self defense other than their hands and edged weapons. And from articles I've seen, in England it is illegal even to use those. Self defense, it seems, is against the law there.
One has to remember that any law, whether to ban weapons or to prohibit jaywalking, are only effective when people obey them. Criminals, by definition, do not worry about breaking the law. They do it as a matter of course. So believing that banning guns will result in eliminating those weapons which criminals have, or may have, is naive at best. All that does is reassure the criminals that their victims are unlikely to have any means of protecting themselves, thereby making it easier, and safer, for the criminals to do their things.

[Thorne]

but it does not mean an unarmed victim does not have a good chance of survival anyway.

All I can picture here is a soldier being told that he shouldn't dig a foxhole becuase he might damage the garden, and he'll "have a good chance of survival without it anyway."

Of course, he'll have a better chance with the foxhole, and to hell with the garden!

My eye was caught by the footnote which indicates that in 65% of the incidents where victims of crime defended themselves with a gun, the offender was unarmed or not armed with a gun. That's almost exactly two out of every three times where excessive force was apparently used, and that could - should - turn the "victim" into the criminal.

Defending one's self with a gun does not necessarily mean that they fired the weapon, only that they were able to deter the attacker with it. And that's the whole point, really. Nobody with any sanity really wants to kill another person, even an attacker, unless forced into it. And defending yourself from bodily harm, or mental harm, or even property loss, is the right of every person.
Personally, if I am attacked, for whatever reason, I would rather have a gun handy and find out the criminal is unarmed, than for the opposite to be true. And as denuseri so clearly points out, the emotional and mental damage which can accompany an attack may be far more debilitating than any physical damage which the attacker might have inflicted. I would rather spend the rest of my life knowing that I stopped a criminal from attacking me and my loved ones, and stopped him from attacking countless other victims over the course of his life, than to have to live with the consequences of doing nothing and letting him do what he will.