I'll bet they were glad to have a firearm at home to defend themselves

[oracleslave]

Firearms are not for everyone - maybe 10-15% of population should qualify, that's enough to have good criminal deterrent.

It's not a deterrent though is it. All it would do would escalate the level of violence involved in criminal activity.

The rate of firearm related deaths per 100 000 in USA exceeds it's economic counterparts eight-fold! Land of the free huh.

AtW I still wouldn't trust you with a pair of scissors

[AtW]

It's not a deterrent though is it. All it would do would escalate the level of violence involved in criminal activity.

Let's say 15% of good law abiding citizens own firearms and by that I mean they are trained to use them.

A criminal attempts his evil bidding, first time it happens there is 0.15 probability he will confront someone with a firearm, thats 0.85 probability he wont. Sounds like there is no difference. Well there is if criminal continues their behavior - 2nd attempt would mean that his chances of NOT meeting someone with firearm will be 0.85*0.85=0.72, 3rd try - 0.61, and after 4th it will be: 0.52, or almost 50-50.

Since criminals are in great minority it means that those of them stupid enough to get involved in anything involving attack on a person or house where such person can be will result in very high price to the criminals.

That's the theory and it works. One needs some obvious courage to follow this pass - pansies need not apply.

[RichardCranium]

A criminal attempts his evil bidding, first time it happens there is 0.15 probability he will confront someone with a firearm, thats 0.85 probability he wont. Sounds like there is no difference. Well there is if criminal continues their behavior - 2nd attempt would mean that his chances of NOT meeting someone with firearm will be 0.85*0.85=0.72, 3rd try - 0.61, and after 4th it will be: 0.52, or almost 50-50.

Since criminals are in great minority it means that those of them stupid enough to get involved in anything involving attack on a person or house where such person can be will result in very high price to the criminals.

And that's why there is no crime in the USA.

[Board Game Geek]

That's the theory and it works. One needs some obvious courage to follow this pass - pansies need not apply.

AtW. I do know you are emotive about this, and I suppose pansies is the least of all things you could have said, but even so, that sort of behaviour isn't going to strengthen your cause.

People don't like change. It frightens them.

In truth, if they want to die hacked to terrible bloody pieces in their beds by hoodie junkies high on crack, then that's their own personal choice, surely ?

[AtW]

And that's why there is no crime in the USA.

It's not about crime - it's about freedom to at least die (if that comes to it) with arms in your hands rather than begging for mercy from people who deserve to be shot.

It's cracking crazy - even in this country justice system accepts that it is better to let suspected (but not beyond reasonable doubt) criminal walk away rather than put innocent into jail. So plenty of scumbags walked (correctly in this case as principle of justice applied is right), killed other people, yet when it comes to firearm ownership you can't accept that in order for these freedoms to be exercised some negative consequences will inevitably happen.

In USA they understand it - maybe because they had to earn their freedom with arms in their hands.

Either way UK policy is beyond ridiculous given examples of France and Germany (not even talking about Swiss people).

[AtW]

AtW. I do know you are emotive about this, and I suppose pansies is the least of all things you could have said, but even so, that sort of behaviour isn't going to strengthen your cause.

Well, it's not exactly the congregation that makes decision regarding firearms use. I am pretty much resigned to the fact that proper firearms ownership won't be available in this country ever.

It's not sufficient reason for me to change my residence, but combined with a few more it might turn out to be a deal breaker.

[RichardCranium]

It's not about crime - it's about freedom to at least die (if that comes to it) with arms in your hands rather than begging for mercy from people who deserve to be shot.

That is a defeatist's call for anarchy as a substitute for crime prevention.

The problem of crime creation is with society's faults; the solution is not arming that broken society's members.

You are proposing "Oh sod it with the Police and courts and a justice system, let's just arm everyone". All Hell would be let loose.

It's cracking crazy - even in this country justice system accepts that it is better to let suspected (but not beyond reasonable doubt) criminal walk away rather than put innocent into jail.

Err, not quite right. It is one of the most important principles of our legal system: "it is better ten guilty people walk free than one innocent person is punished".

So plenty of scumbags walked (correctly in this case as principle of justice applied is right), killed other people,

There have been too many cock-ups as the laws have evolved to try to accommodate Human Rights changes. Over time the pendulum will swing back a bit and a sensible median found. The problem is the laws being written in haste by politicians who were lawyers. Yes, I am referring to Tony Bliar and his wife (who profits enormously from laws he forced through).

yet when it comes to firearm ownership you can't accept that in order for these freedoms to be exercised some negative consequences will inevitably happen.

An adjustment of the legal system is what is required. Not an abandonment of it.

In USA they understand it - maybe because they had to earn their freedom with arms in their hands.

They have a different culture based on their weird and brief history. It is not appropriate here.

Either way UK policy is beyond ridiculous given examples of France and Germany (not even talking about Swiss people).

You are proposing a random solution (dishing out weapons to the masses) to fix a social problem. Other random "solutions" are bringing back hanging, sending the foreigners "home", ID cards and National Service. They are "fixes" that seem simple but they wont work.

In a society where the likes of yourself are frightened of criminals because you think the justice system cannot defend you, giving out guns will make things worse, not better.

[oracleslave]

Bunch of stuff from RC

Post of the year.....so far

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Let's say 15% of good law abiding citizens own firearms and by that I mean they are trained to use them.

A criminal attempts his evil bidding, first time it happens there is 0.15 probability he will confront someone with a firearm, thats 0.85 probability he wont. Sounds like there is no difference. Well there is if criminal continues their behavior - 2nd attempt would mean that his chances of NOT meeting someone with firearm will be 0.85*0.85=0.72, 3rd try - 0.61, and after 4th it will be: 0.52, or almost 50-50.
Since criminals are in great minority it means that those of them stupid enough to get involved in anything involving attack on a person or house where such person can be will result in very high price to the criminals.

That's the theory and it works. One needs some obvious courage to follow this pass - pansies need not apply.

Can someone with a superior knowledge of probability step and and verify this? - it doesn't seem right to me. By this logic, I only have to keep doing the lottery and getting the wrong numbers each week in order to be sure of winning - don't the odds stay the same?

[gingerjedi]

That is a defeatist's call for anarchy as a substitute for crime prevention.

The problem of crime creation is with society's faults; the solution is not arming that broken society's members.

You are proposing "Oh sod it with the Police and courts and a justice system, let's just arm everyone". All Hell would be let loose.

Err, not quite right. It is one of the most important principles of our legal system: "it is better ten guilty people walk free than one innocent person is punished".

There have been too many cock-ups as the laws have evolved to try to accommodate Human Rights changes. Over time the pendulum will swing back a bit and a sensible median found. The problem is the laws being written in haste by politicians who were lawyers. Yes, I am referring to Tony Bliar and his wife (who profits enormously from laws he forced through).

An adjustment of the legal system is what is required. Not an abandonment of it.

They have a different culture based on their weird and brief history. It is not appropriate here.

You are proposing a random solution (dishing out weapons to the masses) to fix a social problem. Other random "solutions" are bringing back hanging, sending the foreigners "home", ID cards and National Service. They are "fixes" that seem simple but they wont work.

In a society where the likes of yourself are frightened of criminals because you think the justice system cannot defend you, giving out guns will make things worse, not better.

WHS