What caliber gun do you carry? (Read 1836 times)

I agree completely.  Which is why I don't understand the issue.

 

I think some people just don't like guns.  But I fail to see how your opinion on firearms should impact anyone's right to own one.

And some people just really do like guns.  If you go back nobody was trying to revoke your right to own a gun.  Some people said they don't see the need to carry one and some other people took this to mean that their rights were under siege.

If there's one thing I don't presume about this place it's linearity.

Well, safer than South Africa, at least.  Table of Per Capita Gun Deaths

 

The thing is, this issue really does need to be discussed in terms of statistics.  Otherwise, it's a lot of hand waving and anecodotal accounts.  I mean sure, the statement "I have a gun to protect my kid against some knife wielding would-be abductor/molester."  Is compelling, but if you can show that the odds of ever encountering such a situation is 1 in 1,000,000, then it seems rather paranoid and possibily not based in reality.  Then again, if you live in the middle of nowhere and there's a 1 in 50 chance of a dingo actually eating your baby, then maybe that's not unreasonable.  However, statistics can be easily manipulated, so neither side will recognize statistics generated by the other side. If my statistics don't support your way of thinking, you'll quote Mark Twain at me. If your statistics don't support my way of thinking, I'll quote Mark Twain at you. Win-win. Or lose-lose. Either way, it's a nice waste of time, and that's the most important thing. 

But, individual decisions are made at the individual level, and society wide statistics are not the same as individual ones.

Let us suppose there is a society-wide correlation between increased gun ownership and increased violence. Let us further suppose we believe that is causative. So now we believe that more owning of guns brings more violence.

Still, John Doe may decide to own a weapon, because he is (a) not convinced his owning a weapon contributes to violence in society -- the society-wide statistical correlation doesn't prove that his weapon possession will increase violence, and (b) he may be more concerned with the statistical effect of his gun ownership on the particular events that may happen to him, from *his* point of view. For example, if someone assaults him, and he shoots them, then he has contributed a violent act to society. But from his point-of-view, this may be a positive trade-off - he has hurt someone else and saved himself from further violence.   This advantage/disadvantage is not necessarily represented at all in just looking at the global societal numbers of guns & violent acts.

Well, safer than South Africa, at least.  Table of Per Capita Gun Deaths

 

 

The figures are so out of date as to be almost worthless.

For example the "troubles" in Northern Ireland ceased a long time ago.  The figures do shown something we found ironic at the time that various US politicians got hot under the collar about Northern Ireland when a lot of the time their own domestic death rates were far higher.

Also I should imagine South Africa and Mexico have shot up of late.

For once I am glad my country is at the bottom of a league table and I estimate that if the USA had the same firearm possession rates and laws as us you would have around 22,000 less deaths per annum. 

But I'm a realist and accept that you already have so many weapons in private hands that the situation cannot be reversed.

Presumably the robber would use some sort of threat of bodily harm to rob the runner of the iPod, so self-defense would likely be justified. 

In Colorado, you can use deadly force in self-defense when it's robbery (among other things):

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

 That has been disproven. DC, Chicago and NYC just to name 3.

Bear Poop, I've read about your exploits. Thems offenses gonna get you shot.

If someone robs me this weekend during my long run, I will give up my $4 in loose change, my cell phone, and my MP3 player, and I will sleep well that evening, knowing that I did not use deadly force over $300.  Although I will likely not run that route until the point in time where the police believe that person is caught, I will immediately replace the mp3 player, upgrade my phone, replace the loose change I was carrying, and go out for a run.

Noble thought but the trouble is, sometimes you give up the $4 and they attack you anyway, just because they can, that's what predators do. Happens all the time, people are robbed of small amounts, give it up willingly, and get hurt or killed anyway. 

The notion that the predator will live up to his side of the "agreement" and let you go is pretty naive and I wouldn't depend upon "honor among thieves".

oh nevermind...