Gun = Violence??

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

So now it's gone from making all men equal to giving him a chance of stopping someone from entering his house; which was true even when he didn't have a gun.

Please elaborate on how the situation would be equal if the man was unarmed?

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Reflexes might be bad, but the reflexes needed to operate a gun are less than the reflexes needed to use a sword or knife effectively and defensively. Hand-Eye coordination is nice, but training with a firearm improves hand-eye coordination. Strength? I'm not saying they're going to use some monstrosity like the Desert Eagle chambered in .50 AE. A .22LR pistol would kick about the same as a paintball gun. Depending on the weight of the gun, felt recoil would be less (people report feeling less recoil with an M1911A1 (.45 ACP) than with a Browning Hi-Power (9mm) due to the increase in weight, which "soaks up" recoil better).

My claim that an old person will not be able to use a weapon effectively in a fight against a younger opponent should be pretty much self-evident. And that's for an unrealistic fair scenario in which both people go for their guns at the same time instead of a more realistic ambush scenario. But fine, let's talk it over:
Reflexes are important as the person who is able to target and shoot his opponent first has a bit of an advantage. Hand-eye coordination can be trained, but old people don't see as well and don't have as steady hands as young people, training can only do so much to remove either disadvantage. As for strength, I doubt that many people are going to buy a .22 pistol for self defense if even a 9mm is considered to be too weak by US standards. And even if an old man/woman could fire a .45 as well as a 9mm they will still be weaker than their opponent which will have an effect on their accuracy.

Y'know, it is possible to do mental-faculty tests on people. After a certain age, you require people to take those tests yearly or so (I'd actually prefer if that was also required for driver's licenses)Yeah, that's why we have laws about who is and isn't an adult.Yes. This is why we don't allow complete retards into the Army. There is a question on most paperwork given by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that asks something along the lines of "have you ever been deemed mentally unfit or been in a sanitarium?" They do check to make sure, they don't just take your word for it.

I think you are missing my point here. If you exclude certain groups from possesing firearms while other groups do have firearms then some people live more securely are the expense of others. If you don't you end up with ridiculous situations like senile people or kids carrying weapons.

I'm sorry, do you really think this will cause robbers to target children? Incredibly affluent, loaded-with-disposable-income children?
"HAND OVER THE FUCKING MILK MONEY OR THE TEDDY BEAR GETS IT, KID!"
"THAT'S A PRETTY NICE CHARIZARD THERE, ITS A SHAME YOU AREN'T KEEPING IT FOR LONG"

You must be unaware of just how much money your average kid or teenager has these days. There are entire industries making a living due to this and I have heard quite a few times of kids being relieved of their mobiles or mp3 players.

So, what's kinda cool about the United States is that we have a big federal government, but also 50 smaller governments, that take care of issues like who exactly gets to own or carry what guns. In states that have adopted concealed-carry laws (permitting people to carry a hidden firearm, provided they are not insane or a felon), they have seen crime rates decrease, more so than the average crime rate. Vermont, considered one of the safest states in the USA, doesn't even require a concealed-carry permit. If you are above the age of 16 and not insane or a felon (which would bar you from any gun ownership), then you may carry a firearm pretty much wherever you damn well please, concealed or openly. Washington, D.C., by contrast, recently tried to ban all handguns, and has one of the, if not the, highest rates of violent crime in the nation.

And I'm sure the NRA bothered to filter out any factors that might bias such a comparison such as, oh I don't know, the difference in population density between a state and a city?
You might just as well claim that the low crime rates of rural Kansas prove that concrete makes people violent.

But even if you find a better comparison you would only prove what we already know, that criminals target those who are less likely to defend themselves. And that is not necessarily a good thing.

BTW: you do realize that you're using the "think of the children" argument, right?

Not really, I'm just pointing out that you put your own interests over those of groups who might not benefit from such laws as much. And those groups include more than just children.
As I pointed out in the past, I am not against gun laws that allow certain people to own weapons, I'm just here to point out all those pro-gun arguments that don't make any sense, there is no shortage of those

[Crazy Wolf]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

My claim that an old person will not be able to use a weapon effectively in a fight against a younger opponent should be pretty much self-evident. And that's for an unrealistic fair scenario in which both people go for their guns at the same time instead of a more realistic ambush scenario.

It is true that generally things would favor a younger one if they started their draw at the the same time. But that's where situational awareness hopefully comes in. Having your weapon ready to fire helps, but what you're really counting on is that the criminal deciding that it is better to retreat then either die or commit homicide for the contents of a wallet. Few people are willing to commit homicide, and "homicide during an armed robbery" is pretty much a express ticket to life (or death) in prison.

But fine, let's talk it over:
Reflexes are important as the person who is able to target and shoot his opponent first has a bit of an advantage. Hand-eye coordination can be trained, but old people don't see as well

Generalization based on biology. Eyesight does decrease as age increases, but there are corrective lenses available, and they have been around for about as long as pistols have. Part of the yearly checkup on firearm ownership could include their eyesight.

and don't have as steady hands as young people, training can only do so much to remove either disadvantage. As for strength, I doubt that many people are going to buy a .22 pistol for self defense if even a 9mm is considered to be too weak by US standards. And even if an old man/woman could fire a .45 as well as a 9mm they will still be weaker than their opponent which will have an effect on their accuracy.

You're right, I was using .22LR as an example of a round with little recoil that most people are familiar(ish) with. .380 is a popular pistol caliber, and has similar percieved recoil, IIRC. 9mm is not considered too weak by US standards, seeing as our military and police still use it. There might be complaints about it, but complaints can be found about everything. Hell, the M1 Garand only loads 8 rounds and is exceedingly hard to "top off", unlike the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield, with 10 rounds and an easy reloading system. Accuracy is more a product of training and practice and eyesight than strength. Strength determines how long you can haul it, and how well you control the recoil/ how quickly you can get followup shots. Ideally, you wouldn't even need one shot, as most criminals are not looking to risk death for a wallet (or, in the case of a home invasion, a TV).

I think you are missing my point here. If you exclude certain groups from possesing firearms while other groups do have firearms then some people live more securely are the expense of others. If you don't you end up with ridiculous situations like senile people or kids carrying weapons.

If they were clearly branded as people who cannot possess firearms, then they would indeed be living less securely than their neighbors. But we don't make people wear some sort of piece of cloth or tag telling everyone that they're crazy or senile. If a criminal can't tell if they have a gun or not, they'll be less likely to go after them. If enough people carry firearms, then fewer criminals are probably going to gamble their health or life for a wallet.

Let's say that you know that 25% of people on a street carry firearms, knives, or swords. How willing are you to break into some random house? OK, now let's say that 50% of people on the street carry firearms, knives, or swords. How willing are you to break into some random house? Now let's go the other way, and say that 0% of people on the street own firearms, knives, swords, etc. How willing are you to break into some random house?

You must be unaware of just how much money your average kid or teenager has these days. There are entire industries making a living due to this and I have heard quite a few times of kids being relieved of their mobiles or mp3 players.

Mobile phones and MP3 players are expensive(ish), but few teenagers I know carry more than a few hundred dollars in cash. When I went to high school (2004-2008, I think a bit more recently than you), maybe one or two people per class of 30 might carry a few hundred. Many more might have iPods or cell phones, but the saturation of those products is sufficient that at least in my area, those weren't worth the risk of getting busted by the cops, and proper situational awareness prevented me or any of my friends from getting a phone, iPod, or wallet taken.

And I'm sure the NRA bothered to filter out any factors that might bias such a comparison such as, oh I don't know, the difference in population density between a state and a city?
You might just as well claim that the low crime rates of rural Kansas prove that concrete makes people violent.

OK, maybe I didn't make myself clear, and I think I muddied it up by comparing Washington D.C. and Vermont. I apologize if that is the case, but the primary point that I was trying to make is that in states that have adopted "shall issue" concealed carry laws (if you aren't crazy/a felon, then you get one) in place of their older "need-based" or "hell no, you ain't carrying concealed" laws have seen a decreased crime rate. I do not source from the NRA, I find their organization highly suspect and, well, clearly biased. I figure the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of Utah would be considered a valid source. I figure the University of Chicago Journal of Legal Studies is a pretty valid source.

But even if you find a better comparison you would only prove what we already know, that criminals target those who are less likely to defend themselves. And that is not necessarily a good thing.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that if they don't know if their target can kill them with a squeeze of a trigger, they'll be less likely to decide on that target. If they don't know whether or not the target is armed, but the statistics and their experience suggest there's a good chance they are, in fact, armed, they will be less likely to decide on that target. If 8/10 people carry a firearm, are you willing to bet that your target is one of the 20%?

Not really, I'm just pointing out that you put your own interests over those of groups who might not benefit from such laws as much. And those groups include more than just children.

Children are the only ones who are indistinguishable from sane, capable adults. The other groups that you pointed out easily blend in with the general population in mild cases, and have specialized care facilities for the extreme cases, where little money is kept, and are very low on the list of profitable burglary/robbery targets.

As I pointed out in the past, I am not against gun laws that allow certain people to own weapons, I'm just here to point out all those pro-gun arguments that don't make any sense, there is no shortage of those

But

Originally Posted by you

If you exclude certain groups from possesing firearms while other groups do have firearms then some people live more securely are the expense of others.

Does that not apply at the individual level?

[Makrin]

Guns don't immediately equal violence, but in the minds of many they do. Those people instantly assume that guns are going to be used for violence and, as such, should be removed. I know several people who believe that "guns have no place in civilized society." But society is only as civilized as the people living in it, and that is a variable subject to change without notice.

EDIT: Crazy Wolf, that does apply to the individual level.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

If you think someone is tailing you, and you take multiple detours, and they're still behind you, then there is a higher chance they're not going along their merry way, and are indeed following you.

Well yes, but the actuality of it's besides the point. If you stop, get your gun out and confront someone what do you think that's going to look like? If they go for their gun and you then have to shoot them what do you think that's going to look like? And what are you trading these risks off against? That someone might want to steal the money in your wallet? Is a few dollars worth risking your freedom for?

Ah well what if they want to kill me... Why would anyone want to kill you? And if they do why have they waited to walk up to you to do it?

You have to have a reason to go for your gun that's going to stand up in court and, 'I think this guy might have been following me,' probably isn't going to cut it.

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

No. that 5-foot-tall, 90 pound man has very little chance of stopping me, a 6'4-tall, 230 pound man from entering his house, if I wanted to and he did not have a weapon. If we both had melee weapons, then (assuming equal training) I'd still have the advantage of reach and power. If we both had a Colt .45, we'd be equally capable of imparting 500 Joules to a small projectile.

Rather than buying a gun that 5 foot tall 90 pound man may have invested in securing his doors and windows. Your 6'4 230 pounds is going to come off very poorly against a decent door frame. Even if you get into the home you're still at a sever disadvantage because you're in his home, he knows where the weapons are and you don't so he can up the stakes more quickly than you can; your 6'4 230 is going to come off poorly when he takes a can of whatever is on his bedside table and sprays it in your eyes. Even if you're armed with an edged weapon he can counteract you with things you can find around almost any home, a chair, a spraycan, a pinhammer. If he has a cup of coffee and you break in he can throw it in your face. There's a weapon in almost everything you can find in a house, it's just a matter of knowing what's available and thinking how to use it; and that's an area where the person who lives there has the advantage.

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

Please elaborate on how the situation would be equal if the man was unarmed?

It wouldn't, why would you want it to be? It's your home. If neither of you are likely to be bringing guns to the fight you should have the advantage; you know the layout of the place, you know where the potentially harmful things are.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

It is true that generally things would favor a younger one if they started their draw at the the same time.

Glad that we agree. The specifc cases of situationally aware, highly trained seniors with corrective eye surgery can probably be ignored as they are not representative of the majority.

but what you're really counting on is that the criminal deciding that it is better to retreat then either die or commit homicide for the contents of a wallet. Few people are willing to commit homicide, and "homicide during an armed robbery" is pretty much a express ticket to life (or death) in prison.

We have been over this, criminals don't stop being criminals due to deterrence which is a point you agreed to earlier.

Generalization based on biology.

No kidding, when talking about a group that is defined by their biological age then maybe generalizations based on the aging process are what you might want to consider

9mm is not considered too weak by US standards, seeing as our military and police still use it. There might be complaints about it, but complaints can be found about everything.

Then again the development of numerous more powerful rounds to replace it or its American counterpart suggests that this round is considered too weak by US standards.

Accuracy is more a product of training and practice and eyesight than strength. Strength determines how long you can haul it, and how well you control the recoil/ how quickly you can get followup shots.

Exactly. And since you seem to be so keen about using a 9mm round you should know that every self-respecting American will shoot more than once when using such a weapon.

If they were clearly branded as people who cannot possess firearms, then they would indeed be living less securely than their neighbors. But we don't make people wear some sort of piece of cloth or tag telling everyone that they're crazy or senile. If a criminal can't tell if they have a gun or not, they'll be less likely to go after them. If enough people carry firearms, then fewer criminals are probably going to gamble their health or life for a wallet.

I don't know about you, but I can tell old from young people and women from men quite easily. Guessing which groups is least likely to have a weapon and/or to use it effectively isn't very difficult either (once you rule out the laser-eye-surgergy-commando-seniors, that is).

Let's say that you know that 25% of people on a street carry firearms, knives, or swords. How willing are you to break into some random house? OK, now let's say that 50% of people on the street carry firearms, knives, or swords. How willing are you to break into some random house? Now let's go the other way, and say that 0% of people on the street own firearms, knives, swords, etc. How willing are you to break into some random house?

Like we already discussed, criminals will still commit crimes, regardless of the amount of firearms that are around. What changes is the target selection process and/or the behavior of the criminal. We discussed already how this target selection doesn't really make the general situation beter. As for the behavior: If there is a 0% chance of encountering an armed opponent I'll break in without a weapon, steal what I can and run for it. If there is a chance that the victim will get a gun I'll bring one on my own to threaten them. If there is a high chance that the victim has a gun I will bring one on my own and shoot them before they get the chance to do so.

Mobile phones and MP3 players are expensive(ish), but few teenagers I know carry more than a few hundred dollars in cash. When I went to high school (2004-2008, I think a bit more recently than you), maybe one or two people per class of 30 might carry a few hundred. Many more might have iPods or cell phones, but the saturation of those products is sufficient that at least in my area, those weren't worth the risk of getting busted by the cops, and proper situational awareness prevented me or any of my friends from getting a phone, iPod, or wallet taken.

My point wasn't to prove that kids/teenagers are the most likely target of a crime, just to point out that you are wrong when you say that they don't own anything that makes them interesting for criminals.

OK, maybe I didn't make myself clear, and I think I muddied it up by comparing Washington D.C. and Vermont. I apologize if that is the case, but the primary point that I was trying to make is that in states that have adopted "shall issue" concealed carry laws (if you aren't crazy/a felon, then you get one) in place of their older "need-based" or "hell no, you ain't carrying concealed" laws have seen a decreased crime rate. I do not source from the NRA, I find their organization highly suspect and, well, clearly biased. I figure the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of Utah would be considered a valid source. I figure the University of Chicago Journal of Legal Studies is a pretty valid source.

As for the sources, I could probably google for equally important names that speak out against guns, but I don't actually trust any American source that talks about an issue that has become as political as this.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that if they don't know if their target can kill them with a squeeze of a trigger, they'll be less likely to decide on that target. If they don't know whether or not the target is armed, but the statistics and their experience suggest there's a good chance they are, in fact, armed, they will be less likely to decide on that target. If 8/10 people carry a firearm, are you willing to bet that your target is one of the 20%?
Children are the only ones who are indistinguishable from sane, capable adults. The other groups that you pointed out easily blend in with the general population in mild cases, and have specialized care facilities for the extreme cases, where little money is kept, and are very low on the list of profitable burglary/robbery targets.

Maybe they will be less likely to commit a crime or maybe they will adjust their tactics. My impression is that the latter outweighs the first factor by far.

But
Does that not apply at the individual level?

It does, but then again I only said that I am not against such laws, not that I think that they are perfect. There simply isn't much of an alternative, at least if you're talking about the US where you have enough weapons in circulation to outlast a 100 year ban and a political system that can be manipulated by influential industries. Not that it takes any influence, considering how much Americans love their guns and the colossal error in judgement that made your ancestors believe that everyone can be trusted with firearms as lethal as those that are available today.

[Crazy Wolf]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

Well yes, but the actuality of it's besides the point. If you stop, get your gun out and confront someone what do you think that's going to look like? If they go for their gun and you then have to shoot them what do you think that's going to look like? And what are you trading these risks off against? That someone might want to steal the money in your wallet?

The actuality of it is beside the point? It's going to look bad if you confront one, it is best if in a public place to try to lose someone who is following you, but if they continue to follow you into a secluded place, then that's suspicious behavior. They might not be intending to robbing you, but you have established reason to believe that they are following you with purpose.

Is a few dollars worth risking your freedom for?

That is exactly the question you want everyone to be asking.

Ah well what if they want to kill me... Why would anyone want to kill you? And if they do why have they waited to walk up to you to do it?

Few people are express targets for an assassination. If they had some skill with a rifle, or ability with disguises and poison, they could dispose of you relatively discreetly. The handgun is not there to defend against some international cartel of thugs you've pissed off. It's there for the crime that makes up 99.9% percent of cases. Having a gun changes a criminal's risk-reward equation. It's greatly increasing the criminal's risk while barely affecting the reward. This is enough to dissuade the vast majority of cases.

Rather than buying a gun that 5 foot tall 90 pound man may have invested in securing his doors and windows. Your 6'4 230 pounds is going to come off very poorly against a decent door frame.

Decent security on doors and windows should cost about the same as a decent handgun($400-600, if you do the work yourself). A crowbar costs maybe $20. Crowbars work quite well against door frames.

Even if you get into the home you're still at a sever disadvantage because you're in his home, he knows where the weapons are

What weapons? He doesn't have a gun in this situation, right? Those sort of laws usually end up applying to swords, spears, and other obvious weapons. A crowbar does pretty good against a lot of household objects that would otherwise be good improvised weapons.

and you don't so he can up the stakes more quickly than you can; your 6'4 230 is going to come off poorly when he takes a can of whatever is on his bedside table and sprays it in your eyes. Even if you're armed with an edged weapon he can counteract you with things you can find around almost any home, a chair, a spraycan, a pinhammer. If he has a cup of coffee and you break in he can throw it in your face. There's a weapon in almost everything you can find in a house, it's just a matter of knowing what's available and thinking how to use it; and that's an area where the person who lives there has the advantage.

Improvised weapons are useful to those who think creatively, have some sort of martial inclination, and have the ability to move from one improvised weapon to another (not confined to a wheelchair or requiring a walker). Intentionally-made weapons are useful to everyone. I don't want this to get into a dick-measuring contest, but how tall are you, what's your weight, and what's your martial arts background? What household objects would work well against me, a 195cm, 110kg guy with little training armed with a crowbar? How well do you think you would fare, and how well do you think the octogenarian a few blocks down would fare?

It wouldn't, why would you want it to be? It's your home. If neither of you are likely to be bringing guns to the fight you should have the advantage; you know the layout of the place, you know where the potentially harmful things are.

If neither have guns, then I have whatever tools got me into the house in the first place. That could just be my hands and feet, but it could also be the aforementioned crowbar.

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

Glad that we agree. The specifc cases of situationally aware, highly trained seniors with corrective eye surgery can probably be ignored as they are not representative of the majority.

You don't need to be highly trained, you need to be familiar with your weapon and comfortable with it. You don't need corrective eye surgery, they're called glasses, or spectacles, they're quite common. An old guy who wears glasses and does what he considers fun in his spare time sounds pretty representative to me.

We have been over this, criminals don't stop being criminals due to deterrence which is a point you agreed to earlier.

True, they don't stop being criminals, but they try to figure out a different racket. Petty thieves aren't known for their smarts, and the learning curve for certain extralegal jobs is kinda high. If we're going to claim that muggers will join drug cartels, then it suggests that the drug cartels just had a bunch of new dumb guys join up. That's a whole lot more opportunities for a member to become an informer, or just plain a screw-up. I'm blaming my East Asian History class for this reference, but was Mao's army stronger or weaker after the Long March?

No kidding, when talking about a group that is defined by their biological age then maybe generalizations based on the aging process are what you might want to consider

I would if there weren't simple ways to address the concerns. Negative stereotypes held about themselves causes people to fulfill the stereotype. Read in the spoilers for more, but they make this long post even longer

Spoiler:

If I recall correctly, this was tested by testing two groups with X color hair/eyes/something, then telling one group that people with X color hair/eyes/something were smarter and the other group that people with X color hair/eyes/something were dumber, and then re-testing them. The group that was told they were smarter than average started performing better. The group that was told they were dumber performed worse.

A similar phenomena has been reported in a study on AFROTC students. They were asked to conduct an eye exam, and were given a score. One group, in casual attire, was then given a flight simulator exercise and asked to read the tail numbers off a plane. They had the same success they had in the normal eye exam. Then the others were given orders to dress in their flight suits, gear, etc. and put in the same flight simulator exercise and ordered to read the tail numbers off the same plane at the same range. They performed better than their previous test.

Then again the development of numerous more powerful rounds to replace it or its American counterpart suggests that this round is considered too weak by US standards.

The American counterpart to the 9x19mm Parabellum is the 9x19mm Parabellum. There are many alternative rounds because there are many different pistols and many different people. Is the 7.92x57mm Mauser round inferior to or better than the 7.62x51mm NATO round? Is the .50 BMG round inferior to or better than the .22LR?
People have different preferences. Some like going to a bigger round, because they feel more secure using something heavier. Some like using smaller cartridges, so they can fit more ammunition in.

Exactly. And since you seem to be so keen about using a 9mm round you should know that every self-respecting American will shoot more than once when using such a weapon.

God bless national stereotypes. They bring so much to the conversation! I mean, going off of national stereotypes, you'd be a huge fan of some sort of cloth badge, maybe in the shape of a triangle, that people could wear so people could easily tell if they're a pacifist or belong to a certain political party

I don't know about you, but I can tell old from young people and women from men quite easily. Guessing which groups is least likely to have a weapon and/or to use it effectively isn't very difficult either...

Can you tell armed old people from unarmed old people? Can you tell an armed woman from an unarmed woman? The point about guns is that you don't have to be a strong young man to be effective with them.

...As for the behavior: If there is a 0% chance of encountering an armed opponent I'll break in without a weapon, steal what I can and run for it. If there is a chance that the victim will get a gun I'll bring one on my own to threaten them. If there is a high chance that the victim has a gun I will bring one on my own and shoot them before they get the chance to do so.

Armed Robbery and Homicide are far worse crimes in the USA than robbery or assault, which result in far harsher sentences.

My point wasn't to prove that kids/teenagers are the most likely target of a crime, just to point out that you are wrong when you say that they don't own anything that makes them interesting for criminals.

Robbing kids is seen as shitty behavior, even among thieves and muggers. An iPod or Cell Phone (unless you're on crack or meth) isn't worth the trouble unless you're able to pickpocket it or just snatch and grab. Hopefully an armed adult would see this attempt to snatch and grab (pickpocketing's harder to pick up on, of course) and do something about it.

As for the sources, I could probably google for equally important names that speak out against guns, but I don't actually trust any American source that talks about an issue that has become as political as this.

OK, so the only experts on immigration in Germany are foreigners, right? Only a Mexican can talk about Immigration in the United Kingdom (very few Mexicans immigrate to the UK, so they're pretty unbiased, by this reasoning)

...the colossal error in judgement that made your ancestors believe that everyone can be trusted with firearms as lethal as those that are available today.

Colossal error in judgement? Our ancestors wanted us to be able to effectively fight against oppression and defend ourselves. If George Washington had 50,000 M-16s and the resources to keep them running, then the war would have been over much faster. There's no difference in lethality between an M-16 and Kentucky Long Rifle, except that the Long Rifle punches a larger hole(arguably more lethal, assuming that hitting a vital organ or blood loss makes a weapon more lethal) and takes longer to reload. The difference is efficiency.

There is the question about whether the Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns so we could be an effective military force without a standing army, and whether having a standing army negates that reason for having firearms, but that is not the only reason the Founding Fathers allowed us guns, going off of their writings.

[Junk angel]

I'm sorry, do you really think this will cause robbers to target children? Incredibly affluent, loaded-with-disposable-income children?
"HAND OVER THE FUCKING MILK MONEY OR THE TEDDY BEAR GETS IT, KID!"
"THAT'S A PRETTY NICE CHARIZARD THERE, ITS A SHAME YOU AREN'T KEEPING IT FOR LONG"

Kids are actually a pretty good target. When you go and mug someone, you usually don't get that much cash directly from them. It's the small stuff, cellphones, etc that usually gives you your income.

Now just about every kid has a mobile phone and they usually have the ones the most worth from the entire family. The kids usually push for the better ones.

So yes pickpockets might just as well go for them.

Also a lot of people here seem to have the view that -gun=absolute control and readiness.
Which it does not.
a)Thieves usually operate in groups
b)Thieves usually operate in crowds.
So there's no way for you to get to the weapon before someone get's close to you. The gun doesn't give you an automatic danger radar that lights up the moment someone comes close to you.

I admit a gun can give you the edge in a home situation where you catch someone breaking in. Of course most house robbers (at least here) don't target homes in which someone is. For good reasons. They tend to actually avoid those. Or act wevy wevy quietly. If there were robbers in the house you were sleeping, you won't usually know till the morning when you notice half your stuff has gone.

Perhaps the thieve culture in the US is different though.

At the same time, that 5ft guy with a colt really doesn't stand that much more chance against you. Since by breaking in with a gun in hand, you've proven one thing - an intent. Which is something that 5ft guy most likely lacks. Also what thieve breaks in alone?

Guns don't neuter violence. They in fact tend to raise the probability of it happening.

People already said that the crossbow made people equal. (well men in that time). It was even banned in many towns and townships due to the threat it meant to an armored aristocrat. But did it in fact make everyone equal? By far not. It changed tactics a bit. But it did not make anyone equal.

As to the second amendment and militias. I guess most of our confusion comes from a simple fact. There's a difference between the european notion of a militia and the US one.

From what I understood from your folks talking - a US militia is raised by the government to defend the government.
In Europe it's considered more of a self forming, self maintaining defense force NOTformed by the government.
The government instead can conscript to the army in times of need.

[Admiral Donutz]

Originally Posted by Junk angel

From what I understood from your folks talking - a US militia is raised by the government to defend the government.
In Europe it's considered more of a self forming, self maintaining defense force NOTformed by the government.
The government instead can conscript to the army in times of need.

As far as I know that's exactly the same definition for a US militia (them not having a real standing army at the time, wanting to allow the people to fight their goverment (through a militia) if it had to be overthrown and such.

[Who_Flung_Poo?]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

That is why American criminals seem to be much more violent than German criminals - if you suspect that your victim is going to defend himself it makes sense to shoot first.

A bit late on this but I just can't let this one go.

What if we look at another nation with very strict gun laws? How about the UK? Right now they have all but abolished all individuals rights to fire arms, and yet the crime rate there just keeps escalating.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

It also recorded the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU, and the highest absolute number of burglaries, with double the number of offences recorded in Germany and France.

I wonder if this comes from the fact that very few home owners have guns, and even less have them in some place readily accessible. Not to mention that the home owners would be more likely to be arrested for committing a "violent crime" for simply defending themselves.

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries - Times Online

Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Strathclyde Police’s violence reduction unit, said the problem was chronic and restricting access to drink and limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem.

Sooner or later they'll have to move on to banning rocks and sticks.