On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:45:52 +0200, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

"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"?

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.

There is a body of evidence that suggests that open ownership of
guns and their general possession reduces some sorts of crimes-- but
it also increases others, mainly crimes of passion.
I think the problem is that many progun enthusiasts are taking the
experience of rural areas, and uncritically assuming you can transfer
that to urban areas. My family lived in a rural community where guns
were omnipresent, and it was a polite community...and not one with a
lot of gunplay.
I live twenty miles outside of LA, and if everyone in LA had a gun,
every rush hour would be a mass slaughter. The two situations are
simply not comparable.



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).

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

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

In california, none of the above. In the 1970's, using a weapon
even against an armed intruder could see you being taken off to jail.
Now, the general standard is that you are presumed to be "at fear for
your life" if you are confronted. It is not a blanket protection--
if the fellow you said you were afraid of dies after being chased down
the street, cornered and shot five times, the DA.... will have some
questions.
Other states tend to give different levels of this-- some pretty
much give a homeowner ON HIS OWN PROPERTY a blanket right of self
defense. I believe texas is the most forgiving in this case, but
there's so much variation it's hard to say-- ditto for gun carrying
laws.



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.

Lower population densities-- and again not comparable, either for
or against the idea of general gun possession in a modern society.
But I will say that the experience of other nations where everyone has
an AK-47 do not make me confident.





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)