"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:




Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that
a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if he's
fending away Indians from the homestead.

Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on
ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a
small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment
complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a
report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who
successfully defend themselves with
firearms
every year(in the US).

Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on the
London
street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to
death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also wounded
by the burglar.

Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against
larger,stronger young thugs unarmed?
Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect
everyone,24/7/365? It's not so.

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the
two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend
off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from
breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However,
were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go
to her home taking a pistol with him.

If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have read of
many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to their
gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and they
get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even after being
shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend themselves increases
the risks for the criminals,often to the point they pick some other crime
to commit.And it's far better than just hoping the criminal has good
intentions towards you.

Which is the safer situation for
the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former.

Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details:

In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths. In
2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517 murders
in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000. Even
accounting for the relative population sizes of the two countries,
you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that does not
include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms in the same
time period.

Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the UK
must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher than in
the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing.

I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly
force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.They either get caught
on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get
killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the public.

But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use firearms
to defend themselves.

Jim Doyle

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net