Quote:
Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
Well, CamB, you need to also realize who is being shot in the US.
Your average law abiding citizen in a nice neighborhood is more likely to be run over by a Porsche than be shot by a handgun.
|
So why do you need one "for protection"?
There's a lot of selective and pseudo stats in there, plus I don't particularly care about a large number of the items they're crusading for (or I often even agree with them). The biggest problem is the large number of exogenous factors influencing the stats. A similar problem is that crime measurement is notoriously unreliable, in particular across countries.
I can't help it. I have a problem with handguns (and to a lesser extent, military style assault rifles which would be useless for hunting). Remember, I'm not against guns, per se.
Can you name another item in society which is as freely available as a handgun and has the sole purpose (in the majority of cases) of being designed to injure or kill another person?
Or I'll give you guys another choice, in my humble opinion:
a) the US has a problem with handguns; and/or
b) US citizens are, as a group, not sufficiently responsible to own guns.
You have the highest rate of gun death in the OECD, and generally there is no relationship (in the remainder of countries) between gun ownership and gun deaths. So, I conclude that either the widespread availability of handguns is the problem, or you have a problem with the mentality of gun owners.
Our criminals don't shoot each other. Sure, they manage to kill or wound each other (excluding gun crime, I believe it is on a slightly greater per capita basis than the US), but they don't shoot each other. How can I not come to the conclusion that this is because there are very few handguns (but many other guns) here?
Oh yeah - our police don't carry either (well, some do - in particular the armed defenders squad - but not many).