View Single Post
Old August 19, 2011, 11:17 PM   #47
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,701
Originally Posted by British Bobby
...This is my take on why stricter gun-laws in the US would NOT help decrease gun-crime particularly....
I submit, sir, that it is a grievous error to focus only on gun crime. The real issue is violent crime, and there is reason to believe that in fact the rate of violent crime in the UK is actually higher than that in the US. See this article.

Granted, it's a few years old, but is there any solid basis upon which to conclude that the situation has changed appreciably? The article is also consistent with the Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the University of Leiden and the study Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 conducted by the US Bureaus of Justice Statistics.

In the meantime, the crime rate in the US continues to decline. See this thread for a discussion.

So the focus on gun crime is both disingenuous and a red herring.

For an excellent study of the rise in violent crime, and the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002). It's well worth reading.

So sir, you're welcome to your opinion, but it appears to be inapposite, ill formed and unsubstantiated. Can you give us any good reason to pay attention to it?

Originally Posted by British Bobby
So in the UK a 110 woman doesn't need a gun to protect herself from a brutal 230 pound rapist / killer?
In my opinion a taser/stun-gun would be a better choice. easier to use and not risky of killing others in the process.
I find that an interesting statement from someone who claims to be a trained law enforcement officer.

In most cases, use of less lethal weapons, e. g., tasers, pepper spray, bean bag munitions, etc., is considered appropriate by law enforcement only if (1) officers are present in sufficient number to take appropriate further action if the less lethal approach fails; or (2) the use of lethal force would not under the circumstances be justified. In any case, such devices have an appreciable failure rate and/or there use can easily be botched, so it is questionable if a slight woman should be expected to rely on such a device when facing a high probability of an immediate and potentially lethal attack -- at least without readily available lethal force as back-up.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.03574 seconds with 7 queries