I thought guns were banned in England??

[Q9]

I'd have to dig up the statistics but it is stated that doctors accidentally kill more patients each year than guns.

It's well known that way more people are killed in car accidents and accidental drowning than with guns.

 

[newfoundland]

There has never had prohibition in the UK.

. According to statistics Population of US is 5 times greater than UK, murders are 20 times greater. Murder by guns are 630 times greater. These figures are approximate but I think I spot a trend here. Knives can certainly be as deadly as guns, so can baseball bats or bricks. The difference is, you have to have your opponent within arms length to stab or club them. There are no second chances with a gun, in that split second the deed is done.

Regarding invasions, neither the US or UK has experienced this for hundreds of years. The peoples of Europe who were invaded during WW2, derived no protection from personal guns, as these are hardly effective against tanks and heavy artillery.

With the exception of India, most parts of the British Empire were largely unoccupied territories that were colonised and them claimed for the King. Not a strategy that we would agree with today I'm sure, but this was the 16th to the 18th century. Gradually over the years, as the immigrants became assimilated into their communities and cultures, they quite naturally sought self determination and independence. The Empire disappeared when the various countries became independent. Happily for the UK most chose to belong to the Commonwealth. A loyal and valued family of nations, much loved and respected by our Queen, who have stuck by the UK through thick and thin. Who then needs an empire?

 

[bakerjw]

What percentage of murders where a firearms is used are from individuals barred from gun ownership due to felony convictions or other reasons? When I read the news almost every arrest for a gun crime carries a charge of "illegal possession of a firearm by a felon". We have countless laws regarding firearms and their use but the evidence shows that the criminal element or the occasional nut job whacko doesn't give a care about a "No guns allowed" sign or what the laws say. The only option then is to get rid of all firearms which would be fine in a world where people and governments wouldn't get corrupted by power but we all know how quickly governments can become corrupted. Times are tough and only going to get tougher so I am glad that our population here at least has the opportunity to defend ourselves if things get really bad.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Regarding Switzerland - it wasn't just the Nazis.  They haven't been invaded in centuries.  Part of it is the terrain, but another part is near-universal gun ownership and military training, plus a plan to blow up every bridge in the country within 24 hours.  There are a lot of aspects to it, but gun ownership plays a very large role.

Regarding home invasions and self-defense with guns in general - looking at lethal cases only is somewhat misleading.  In the *vast* majority of instances of self-defense with a gun, a shot is never fired.  Odds are, a robber staring down the barrel of a 12-gauge is going to surrender.

If a burglar has a choice between a hard (well-defended) target and a soft (undefended) target, which is he more likely to go for?  Everyone thinks in terms of risk vs reward.  Breaking into a home you know is armed, you run the risk of getting shot to death.  Breaking into an unarmed home, you run very little risk and the reward is likely the same.  One interesting statistic - in areas with heavy gun restrictions, "hot" burglaries (burglaries while the home is occupied) are WAY more common.  Criminals may be stupid, but they ain't suicidal.  Notice that almost all the major shootings have taken place in "gun-free" zones, especially schools.

An interesting post as usual from you. I did a little research. You are correct. Other than Napoleon, no one has conquered Switzerland since they formed the initial confederation. This goes back to even before firearms were invented. And Napoleon's occupancy was over two hundred years ago, so your use of the plural "centuries" is correct. They fought other battles and wars, but Napoleon is the only one that has conquered them, and he had some inside help. As some of us may have noted, conquering is different than occupying. Napoleon decided it was not worth the effort to occupy.

It was 1874 when the Swiss laws were changed so every able-bodied citizen was available to be called up. Until then the "army" was a fairly low percentage of the population.

The following is information from the internet and we all know how unreliable any information off the internet can be, not just Wikipedia information. But it appears that Germany did plan to invade Switzerland when they could get around to it. They were kind of tied up in the East at the time, which delayed it. The Swiss plan of defense was to abandon the lowlands and defend the mountains, including mountain passes the Germans needed to get around Europe. I just have visions of German tanks fighting cavalry on the flat plains of Poland versus the Germans trying to keep saboteurs from blowing up bridges in those mountain passes. With the Swiss army cut off form lines of supply, there would have been a limited amount of time they could have held out as an effective fighting force, but conquering and occupying in that mountainous terrain would have been expensive in terms of personnel, equipment, and supplies.

We all have our preconceived notions of what is important. My preconceived notion is that the mountainous terrain, the limited benefits from conquering and occupying the territory, the concessions the Germans had from the Swiss, and other uses for the resources available had more to do with the reason Switzerland was not occupied by the Germans that a relatively poorly trained and armed military force going up against the best trained and armed military at the time.

I worked with numbers as an engineer most of my adult life, after I finished college and my short military service. I know how numbers can be manipulated so I'm very suspicious of any statistics unless I really know what went into them. Just by making one basic assumption or restricting or not restricting one aspect of the raw data can totally change the relevance. You have to use statistics but you have to understand what those statistics are really saying or how they might be giving you false information. In other words, I'm pretty darn cynical about most information and like to actually understand it.

You could use the Soviet and our difficulties in Afghanistan to say that a well-armed populace makes it hard to occupy a country, and I'd agree somewhat with you. But I'd counter that the Afghans have safe havens and people supplying them, which the Swiss in WWII would not have had. Logistically, how could we have supplied them since they would have been surrounded by enemy forces?

I'm not anti-gun ownership. I have a 12 gauge for use on certain vermin. I agree that a well-defended home is less likely to be invaded by SOME criminals. Some, not all. How many people actually know if I or you have a gun or not? If your friends that would know you actually have a gun are the ones you need to deter from invading your home, maybe you need some new friends? I'd think a healthy male or a barking dog in residence would be a much greater deterrent than somebody I don't know thinking somebody might have a gun. I remember a friend home on leave from the army, staying with his wife and mother-in-law who normally lived there alone. Luckily the invader that did not know he was home fell inside the door when he broke it open instead of the shotgun blast blowing him off the porch. That made the legalities of the situatiion much cleaner. The shotgun was there all the time. I'm just glad my friend happened to be home to use it properly.

I do worry about my brother-in-law and his wife. They are not familiar with guns and ard not comfortable with using them. But they own a handgun. I've suggested they at least take a gun safety course, but they just won't do it. How beneficial do you think that handgun would actually be for them if they were faced with a home invasion? I'd be a lot more worried for them than about the invader. Well, I would be more worried about their safety anyway since I would not worry about the health and safety of the invader, but I think you see where I'm headed with this. I think that handgun is more likely to get them hurt than actually protect them.

I think back of the few times I've heard noises in the dark that made me even consider getting a gun before checked it out. Each and every time it was my children making those noises. I'm very glad I did not have a loaded and cocked gun in my hand at those times. To me, the benefits of having a gun in the house to protect against home invasion is more of a romantic notion than something based on experience, but I have seldom lived in places where the risk of home invasion is that high. We all have our own realities and our own friends.

Anyway, it is always fun to discuss things with you. Sometimes we even agree.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Regarding invasions, neither the US or UK has experienced this for hundreds of years.

Hate to tell you but the US government invades an kills its own people regularly. An the farmers along the Mexican border are getting in firefights daily with illegals that try to kill them on there own land just for being in there way. Then there is the need to defend your self from animal attacks.


I live in a county that every person has a gun. They usually keep several at home, a few in there car or truck an one or 2 on them. In 13 years of me being a part of the EMS system in this county, I have seen people die many more ways than I can remember. In all that time I saw 3 gun shot wounds in the county an all were self inflicted. So guns are not causing any murders or spikes in murders. In places like Atlanta though, people are killed every day. Its part of the culture of Atlanta. They dont have more guns per person than us, they have less. Same with NYC where they ban guns. The have a huge murder rate. There are less guns per person in NYC an WDC than anywhere else in the US but they have some of the highest murder rates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I lived in the suburbs of New Orleans for many years. Several times, the City of New Orleans, not the metropolitan area but the City of New Orleans itself, had the highest murder rate in the country, even surpassing Washington DC, which was usually the highest murder rate rival. Not total murders but murder rate. Most of those murders in the City of New Orleans were drug deals gone bad or drug rivals battling for turf. Some were basic gang warfare, too, but that was often tied to the drug trade. Occasionally an innocent bystander was killed, but the vast majority were involved with the illegal drug trade and gangs. Yeah, most of those were from gunshots. And a whole lot of the intended "victims" were armed even if the general population was not.

Should those drug-related murders even count in the murder rate? I felt quite safe in my suburban home outside the City of New Orleans. I avoided certain areas of the city, especially at night.

I don't see guns as a deterrent and I don't see guns as a reason for the murder rate. I see guns as a tool that can be used for good or evil.

 

[chickened]

Antartica is a whole continent unclaimed. Some places are just not worth owning.

An interesting post as usual from you. I did a little research. You are correct. Other than Napoleon, no one has conquered Switzerland since they formed the initial confederation. This goes back to even before firearms were invented. And Napoleon's occupancy was over two hundred years ago, so your use of the plural "centuries" is correct. They fought other battles and wars, but Napoleon is the only one that has conquered them, and he had some inside help. As some of us may have noted, conquering is different than occupying. Napoleon decided it was not worth the effort to occupy.
It was 1874 when the Swiss laws were changed so every able-bodied citizen was available to be called up. Until then the "army" was a fairly low percentage of the population.
The following is information from the internet and we all know how unreliable any information off the internet can be, not just Wikipedia information. But it appears that Germany did plan to invade Switzerland when they could get around to it. They were kind of tied up in the East at the time, which delayed it. The Swiss plan of defense was to abandon the lowlands and defend the mountains, including mountain passes the Germans needed to get around Europe. I just have visions of German tanks fighting cavalry on the flat plains of Poland versus the Germans trying to keep saboteurs from blowing up bridges in those mountain passes. With the Swiss army cut off form lines of supply, there would have been a limited amount of time they could have held out as an effective fighting force, but conquering and occupying in that mountainous terrain would have been expensive in terms of personnel, equipment, and supplies.
We all have our preconceived notions of what is important. My preconceived notion is that the mountainous terrain, the limited benefits from conquering and occupying the territory, the concessions the Germans had from the Swiss, and other uses for the resources available had more to do with the reason Switzerland was not occupied by the Germans that a relatively poorly trained and armed military force going up against the best trained and armed military at the time.
I worked with numbers as an engineer most of my adult life, after I finished college and my short military service. I know how numbers can be manipulated so I'm very suspicious of any statistics unless I really know what went into them. Just by making one basic assumption or restricting or not restricting one aspect of the raw data can totally change the relevance. You have to use statistics but you have to understand what those statistics are really saying or how they might be giving you false information. In other words, I'm pretty darn cynical about most information and like to actually understand it.
You could use the Soviet and our difficulties in Afghanistan to say that a well-armed populace makes it hard to occupy a country, and I'd agree somewhat with you. But I'd counter that the Afghans have safe havens and people supplying them, which the Swiss in WWII would not have had. Logistically, how could we have supplied them since they would have been surrounded by enemy forces?
I'm not anti-gun ownership. I have a 12 gauge for use on certain vermin. I agree that a well-defended home is less likely to be invaded by SOME criminals. Some, not all. How many people actually know if I or you have a gun or not? If your friends that would know you actually have a gun are the ones you need to deter from invading your home, maybe you need some new friends? I'd think a healthy male or a barking dog in residence would be a much greater deterrent than somebody I don't know thinking somebody might have a gun. I remember a friend home on leave from the army, staying with his wife and mother-in-law who normally lived there alone. Luckily the invader that did not know he was home fell inside the door when he broke it open instead of the shotgun blast blowing him off the porch. That made the legalities of the situatiion much cleaner. The shotgun was there all the time. I'm just glad my friend happened to be home to use it properly.
I do worry about my brother-in-law and his wife. They are not familiar with guns and ard not comfortable with using them. But they own a handgun. I've suggested they at least take a gun safety course, but they just won't do it. How beneficial do you think that handgun would actually be for them if they were faced with a home invasion? I'd be a lot more worried for them than about the invader. Well, I would be more worried about their safety anyway since I would not worry about the health and safety of the invader, but I think you see where I'm headed with this. I think that handgun is more likely to get them hurt than actually protect them.
I think back of the few times I've heard noises in the dark that made me even consider getting a gun before checked it out. Each and every time it was my children making those noises. I'm very glad I did not have a loaded and cocked gun in my hand at those times. To me, the benefits of having a gun in the house to protect against home invasion is more of a romantic notion than something based on experience, but I have seldom lived in places where the risk of home invasion is that high. We all have our own realities and our own friends.
Anyway, it is always fun to discuss things with you. Sometimes we even agree.

 

[Matthew3590]

Antartica is a whole continent unclaimed. Some places are just not worth owning.

I believe there is an international treaty that says no country can own it. Much like the moon or any other land in outer space.

 

[chickened]

I bet if oil was found there that would change.

I believe there is an international treaty that says no country can own it. Much like the moon or any other land in outer space.

 

[newfoundland]

It seems to me that gun ownership is embedded in the culture of US for several historical reasons. I don't believe that can be changed by more legislation it would require an alteration in the mindset of the population and that would be very unlikely to happen. It is not embedded in our culture ans I for one prefer to keep it that way.