From: "Paul McDermott", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>You are in fact safer in most parts of the US than you are here, because
>the violent crime is concentrated in certain urban areas, whereas the
>burglary rate is lower generally and so is theft in the rural and
>surburban areas compared to the UK. So provided you steer clear of
>certain urban areas (e.g. Liberty City, FL where nearly all of the
>tourists murdered in Florida were killed) you are safer overall in
>the US than here.
Yes, I'll acknowledge that this is true, but then again, there is no
comparison between the ways in which the US and UK are populated. Many
states, including their urban sprawl are hugely unpopulated. In may states,
the population density is 1% or less than the UK, which is of course one of
the most densely populated countries in the world. Many of the communities
in these states are isolated by a hundred miles in any direction. I think it
therefore follows that in many of them, most people know most other people,
as was the case historically in some communities here. I feel that this is
more of a pointer toward lower robbery figures and such. It was true here
when these communities still existed in this form. I don't have the
breakdown of figures, but I wouldn't be altogether surprised if there was
less robbery and street violence in Shitkicker,Illinois than your average UK
town. That says more about UK people than anything else though. As I have
mentioned elsewhere, I used to have to control the flower of the nation's
young manhood on a Saturday night, when it was full of Stella Artois, and
that you don't see as much of in most of the US.
If anything, this is ammunition for the anti gun lobby? Laws that work(?) in
the US wouldn't work here. We have more predisposition toward casual
violence here, many feel. Not a recipe for relaxing gun laws in the eyes of
most politicians.
>The problem with the statistic on self-defence the DoJ uses is that it
>excludes uses where no-one was shot, and in 99%+ of self-defence cases
>no shots are fired, as when an attacker sees a gun pointed at them they
>flee.
This may well be true, but as there is no evidence either way, most people
will say it is just rhetoric, surely?
>I think at the end of the day it is very hard to tell how
>much "net benefit" guns have, the reality is that I look at it from the
>personal perspective. I can shoot better than any criminal, and I would
>rather be armed than unarmed, because I am probably physically weaker
>than most attackers. Unfortunately I don't have that option here.
I think you make a very honest point. As I pointed out elsewhere, I used to
work for people who, for one reason or another felt 'threatened'. I have to
say, in the majority of the cases, they weren't. As for yourself, you are
several thousand times more likely to be killed or injured on the roads than
murdered in your home. I'm sure you would prefer to be armed than unarmed, I
would too. Personal preference can only play a part in society's legal
systems when it is the preference of the majority?
>Also you are completely off-base with your comment about Belgium. That
>is totally unrelated to whether or not less gun laws would lower crime.
>My personal view is that less gun laws would certainly lower crime if
>only because there would be more police resources available.
I'm not sure I can go along with that. If you relax gun law, you relax for
all without criminal record, (I assume). Many of those in Belgium had/have
no convictions. As for the plod, most people acknowledge major shake up
needed all round, and certainly lots more officers. I'm not sure the current
legislation takes so many men 'off the beat'. Usually the workshy office
wallers that come to squint at your serial numbers, isn't it? :o)
I acknowledge current gun legislation is a waste of time. I acknowledge the
money wasted in the cases you cite. Having spoken to all of those names you
mentioned there, at Bisley one time or another, I did get the impression
(maybe wrongly)in some of the circumstances, that they contributed to their
own downfalls at least to some degree. I feel their attitudes toward the
plod were always confrontational, and it became a personal rather than a
legal thing for both sides. I'm not saying that this justified what
happened, but I was left with that feeling.
I want to thank you for taking the time (I can see how heavy demands must
upon your time, moderating this.) for such a long, honest and well thought
out reply. When opinion is put in such a calm and non aggressive way, I may
not agree, but I am happy to agree to differ.
Paul
--
I've never bought into this argument that more guns = more violence.
Look at the riot in LA after the basketball result, that was just
general violence, people didn't pull out guns and start shooting each
other. I've seen football hooligans in Switzerland, a pretty fair
percentage of whom probably have assault rifles at home, and they
don't start shooting each other either.
I can only actually think of one shooting fatality after a football
game, in Austria a couple of years ago.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
