Another fun chart

[SwordsMaster]

Right, boys, cold shower. Let's keep it civil.

To get back to DC's post about the social contract issue. So, you are of the opinion, that your right to carry guns will allow you to defend yourself and your possessions against intruding agents. However, while the original purpose of gun ownership (to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government) is very respectable, if you did attempt to shoot a police officer who entered your house unannounced no amount of appeals to the constitution would help you avoid conviction.

So while i understand what others have said about personal self defense, I'd like to point out that these muggings and assaults that you speak of are not restricted to the US, and also happen in Italy, France, Poland and even Monaco. And yet their overall murder rates are lower. And personally, when I'm walking down the street, I wouldn't want to think there is some nutjob playing with his gun by the window and I just might get shot. I know my chances of getting run over by traffic are higher, but it is still an uninviting prospect.

The other issue you point at, the abundance of gun crime in places that have banned it, seems self evident. You cannot ban guns in a small part of the country, and do nothing elsewhere. This will only attract armed crime to this - now defenseless - city.

I guess what I'm trying to examine is precisely this issue of social contract. When the constitution was written - the last quarter of the XVIII century, individuals had less freedom, but greater independence than they have today. The ideas of nationhood and globalisation have given us more freedom, but have eroded our independence within the system. So perhaps the rules of the social contract should be reconsidered.

The amount of legislation per capita in the world is, in my opinion, quite appalling. Have we lost all ability to make our own decisions?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Right, boys, cold shower. Let's keep it civil.

To get back to DC's post about the social contract issue. So, you are of the opinion, that your right to carry guns will allow you to defend yourself and your possessions against intruding agents. However, while the original purpose of gun ownership (to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government) is very respectable, if you did attempt to shoot a police officer who entered your house unannounced no amount of appeals to the constitution would help you avoid conviction.

There was just a thread on this a couple weeks ago--a drug dealer who shot and killed a police man who busted into his house was let off.

The other issue you point at, the abundance of gun crime in places that have banned it, seems self evident. You cannot ban guns in a small part of the country, and do nothing elsewhere. This will only attract armed crime to this - now defenseless - city.

It should be evident that you can't ban guns at all in the US. We have giant borders to the north and south. We can't keep drugs and illegal immigrants out, you think we can keep guns out?

Hey, how many times have you all had to defend yourselves from an attacker *EDIT: what's more, when a gun was the only suitable defense and a melee weapon would not have sufficed?

Just about any time a woman is attacked by a man a melee weapon will not suffice. Same with an attack by multiple people. Guns equalize things. I'd rather have a pistol against two guys with machine guns than a knife against two with knives. Common sense.

I know the American media suggests the opposite, but not everyone is out to get you.

No one thinks they are, nice job trying to paint all Americans as paranoid nutjobs though.

Also, a city with a ban on guns isn't 'defenseless', there are such things as police forces but I know you all think you are more competent than those trained professionals, it doesn't surprise when such experts accidentally shoot family members while defending their property and all things American.

The police are limited in how much protection they can provide.

[Craterus]

Just about any time a woman is attacked by a man a melee weapon will not suffice. Same with an attack by multiple people. Guns equalize things. I'd rather have a pistol against two guys with machine guns than a knife against two with knives. Common sense.

That wasn't the question, did I need to bold and capitalise the YOU?

No one thinks they are, nice job trying to paint all Americans as paranoid nutjobs though.

Really? I read about a few statistics: crime has gone down in the US, but the reporting of crime in the media has gone waaay up, and with that so has the sales of firearms?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That wasn't the question, did I need to bold and capitalise the YOU?

I know you said YOU. I didn't respond to that because it's clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand. You wouldn't come into a thread on racism against black people and say "how many of you have been discriminated against because of your skin color?" when clearly most of us are white. There are more people in America than there are in this thread.

Really? I read about a few statistics: crime has gone down in the US, but the reporting of crime in the media has gone waaay up, and with that so has the sales of firearms?

People are reached by the media more than ever before, but you were exaggerating needlessly. You seem to be trying to make the point that some people buy guns when they don't need to because they are scared, but that's not the issue. Some people are rightfully scared and they have a right to defend themselves.