"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

Welll,due to those who are against people using,carrying,or even
owning firearms,most US citizens do not own guns,nor carry them.Thus
the chances of criminals encountering armed citizens is not high
enough yet to deter such crimes.

So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the
accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

In the hands of ODCs.yes. Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.So,the cheapest method is
to make crimes too costly for criminals to consider.Can't have police
everywhere,24/7/365,too costly.

There are many excellent reasons to own and enjoy firearms of all
sorts, but this notion that more weapons equals increased safety just
isn't one of them - not at an overall level, anyway. If the level of
firearm ownership you have in the US isn't already sufficient to deter
criminals, increasing ownership (unavoidably including that segment of
the population known as "criminals not yet identified or convicted")
is unlikely to help.

It's not the ownership,it's the CARRIAGE of such weapons.Many places
prohibit carriage of guns,some prohibit guns entirely.

And in many states,defending property with lethal force IS
illegal,protecting the criminals,making it safer for them to commit
such crimes.

What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?

Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).

you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.
Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.


Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.
If you're wearing it.If he's in your house,then he's a threat to you
anyways.

Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.
Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.

Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.


ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were
armed,people could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without
much fear of theft.

I seem to remember much talk of hanging horse thieves, suggesting that
this "golden age" was illusory.

My grandparents *did* live with doors unlocked, but that was because
(a) they lived in a close-knit community where everyone knew everyone
and theft would have been seen, (b) they were poor and frankly had
very little to steal. (No guns, in case you were wondering)

--
Paul J. Adam




You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's life,but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property. Then there's the insurance costs that get spread out to
everyone.It's simply appeasement,that all.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net