4 ms·

> This is the sole reason I would never ever consider living in the USA Just to provide a counter-anecdote, the fact that I couldn't legally own weapons capabl

by archon 14y ago

> This is the sole reason I would never ever consider living in the USA Just to provide a counter-anecdote, the fact that I couldn't legally own weapons capable of leveling the playing field between me and an armed criminal makes me disinclined to ever consider living in the UK. The best I can do for protection is a baseball bat? Terrifying.

jlgreco 14y ago
To be honest, as an American, either position strikes me as irrational. The chances of being the victim of random violent in either country is not worth worrying about. My habit of jaywalking probably puts me in far more danger than either not having a weapon in the UK or simply living in the US where others do, but I rarely give jaywalking a second thought.
- oscardelben 14y ago
  It's not like a criminal is going to give you a call letting you know that they're getting in so you get prepared. Fun exercise: did guns save more lives or took more away? EDIT: this is for gp.
  - archon 14y ago
    > It's not like a criminal is going to give you a call letting you know that they're getting in so you get prepared. It's late and I'm tired, so I must be missing the point you're making here. How does knowing whether a criminal is coming affect the argument for or against firearms for defense? It takes me about 2 seconds to ready a firearm, and I have this excellent living burglar alarm called a "black labrador retriever" who will give me at least that much warning. :) > Fun exercise: did guns save more lives or took more away? Took more away, definitely. What's your point? We can't magically un-invent firearms, unfortunately.
    - oscardelben 14y ago
      I don't want to argue freedom of owning a gun, and you may very wel be trained to deal in such situations, but a gun most likely wont help you if you get in trouble. You can take away guns, but it would take many years, perhaps decades. Lots of other countries have done it.
- archon 14y ago
  > either position strikes me as irrational. Right. Because they are both irrational. Fear isn't a rational thing. I think both tehwalrus's comment and mine are two very different responses to the same fear. tehwalrus fears being surrounded by people who are "armed to the teeth, legally." I fear being surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth, illegally. tehwalrus would rather those people not be armed at all. I would rather have the ability to at least attempt to defend myself with comparable force. Where we differ is in our assumptions. I assume that no law will ever make firearms magically inaccessible to criminals. > The chances of being the victim of random violent in either country is not worth worrying about. Yep. I realize, in the rational parts of my mind, that if I sold my guns tomorrow and never touched one again, I have a pretty high probability of living to a ripe old age without ever being a victim of violence. I don't want to put words in tehwalrus' mouth, but I think he probably realizes too that if he were to live in the States, the chance of one of those gun-carriers around him on a day to day basis going on a shooting spree is quite small. But my point is that fear is immune to statistics. In my mind, owning guns for self-defense (and, on a side note, knowing when and how to use them legally) is the exact same thing as buying life insurance. Statistically, will I ever need life insurance? No. Otherwise insurance companies wouldn't make a profit. But there's always the chance. So in the same way that I want my family to be provided for in the event that I die unexpectedly, I want the ability to attempt to defend myself and the people I care about. Would I prefer to live in a perfect world where nobody's afraid of violence? Absolutely. But unfortunately we don't live in such a place.
  - aninhumer 14y ago
    >I assume that no law will ever make firearms magically inaccessible to criminals. Sure, it is not impossible to own a gun in the UK, but the laws do make it a lot more difficult. Because there's no legal supply, they're harder to get hold of, and even if a criminal does, they're taking a significant risk every time they carry it around. It just isn't worthwhile for random petty criminals to carry a gun in the same way as in the US. The result is that criminals having guns simply isn't something that people in the UK worry about, to the extent that we are even comfortable with an unarmed police force. Of course the big difference between the US and the UK is the number of guns available. Making guns as inaccessible in the US as they are in the UK would be a phenomenal undertaking, and likely would result temporarily in the "only outlaws have guns" scenario from pro-gun rhetoric. It would be nice if there was a gradual path you guys could take, but realistically you're probably just stuck with them.
Nitramp 14y ago
I think "levelling the playing field" is a very dangerous assumption. You're not levelling the playing field - the person you are thinking about fighting is a criminal. He will have much less restraint in using force than you will, so he'll be at a massive advantage. On top of that, given that robbing people might be his full time occupation, he'll try to be armed better than you are, so you don't put up resistance (he has no interest in being killed or killing you, after all). So essentially you're triggering an arms race, the results of which can be seen in the US. The European (or possible "every other developed country") approach is to not even try to fight criminals (again, you have little chance anyway, they are professionals after all) but rely on the police, where the police has such overwhelming force that no reasonable person would try to fight them. Given crime statistics, the European approach appears to result in a lot less crime and violence.

by archon 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago

To be honest, as an American, either position strikes me as irrational. The chances of being the victim of random violent in either country is not worth worrying about. My habit of jaywalking probably puts me in far more danger than either not having a weapon in the UK or simply living in the US where others do, but I rarely give jaywalking a second thought.

oscardelben 14y ago
It's not like a criminal is going to give you a call letting you know that they're getting in so you get prepared. Fun exercise: did guns save more lives or took more away? EDIT: this is for gp.
- archon 14y ago
  > It's not like a criminal is going to give you a call letting you know that they're getting in so you get prepared. It's late and I'm tired, so I must be missing the point you're making here. How does knowing whether a criminal is coming affect the argument for or against firearms for defense? It takes me about 2 seconds to ready a firearm, and I have this excellent living burglar alarm called a "black labrador retriever" who will give me at least that much warning. :) > Fun exercise: did guns save more lives or took more away? Took more away, definitely. What's your point? We can't magically un-invent firearms, unfortunately.
  - oscardelben 14y ago
    I don't want to argue freedom of owning a gun, and you may very wel be trained to deal in such situations, but a gun most likely wont help you if you get in trouble. You can take away guns, but it would take many years, perhaps decades. Lots of other countries have done it.
archon 14y ago
> either position strikes me as irrational. Right. Because they are both irrational. Fear isn't a rational thing. I think both tehwalrus's comment and mine are two very different responses to the same fear. tehwalrus fears being surrounded by people who are "armed to the teeth, legally." I fear being surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth, illegally. tehwalrus would rather those people not be armed at all. I would rather have the ability to at least attempt to defend myself with comparable force. Where we differ is in our assumptions. I assume that no law will ever make firearms magically inaccessible to criminals. > The chances of being the victim of random violent in either country is not worth worrying about. Yep. I realize, in the rational parts of my mind, that if I sold my guns tomorrow and never touched one again, I have a pretty high probability of living to a ripe old age without ever being a victim of violence. I don't want to put words in tehwalrus' mouth, but I think he probably realizes too that if he were to live in the States, the chance of one of those gun-carriers around him on a day to day basis going on a shooting spree is quite small. But my point is that fear is immune to statistics. In my mind, owning guns for self-defense (and, on a side note, knowing when and how to use them legally) is the exact same thing as buying life insurance. Statistically, will I ever need life insurance? No. Otherwise insurance companies wouldn't make a profit. But there's always the chance. So in the same way that I want my family to be provided for in the event that I die unexpectedly, I want the ability to attempt to defend myself and the people I care about. Would I prefer to live in a perfect world where nobody's afraid of violence? Absolutely. But unfortunately we don't live in such a place.
- aninhumer 14y ago
  >I assume that no law will ever make firearms magically inaccessible to criminals. Sure, it is not impossible to own a gun in the UK, but the laws do make it a lot more difficult. Because there's no legal supply, they're harder to get hold of, and even if a criminal does, they're taking a significant risk every time they carry it around. It just isn't worthwhile for random petty criminals to carry a gun in the same way as in the US. The result is that criminals having guns simply isn't something that people in the UK worry about, to the extent that we are even comfortable with an unarmed police force. Of course the big difference between the US and the UK is the number of guns available. Making guns as inaccessible in the US as they are in the UK would be a phenomenal undertaking, and likely would result temporarily in the "only outlaws have guns" scenario from pro-gun rhetoric. It would be nice if there was a gradual path you guys could take, but realistically you're probably just stuck with them.

Nitramp 14y ago

I think "levelling the playing field" is a very dangerous assumption. You're not levelling the playing field - the person you are thinking about fighting is a criminal. He will have much less restraint in using force than you will, so he'll be at a massive advantage. On top of that, given that robbing people might be his full time occupation, he'll try to be armed better than you are, so you don't put up resistance (he has no interest in being killed or killing you, after all). So essentially you're triggering an arms race, the results of which can be seen in the US. The European (or possible "every other developed country") approach is to not even try to fight criminals (again, you have little chance anyway, they are professionals after all) but rely on the police, where the police has such overwhelming force that no reasonable person would try to fight them. Given crime statistics, the European approach appears to result in a lot less crime and violence.