reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
Im curious why if guns are such a great deterrent to violent crime the US still has such a high rate?
Firearms are only a deterrent to crime if the perpetrator feels there is a likely hood that he/she may be shot. One of the things many non US citizens
fail to take into account is that if a crime is stopped by someone with a firearm, they no longer have the legal justification to shoot the alleged
perp. Quite often criminals just run away in search of easier targets.
In the United States, areas that have less strict "gun laws" DO tend to have much lower crime rates than those areas with outright bans, or even
very strict "gun laws".
Though I am not one that would claim that firearms would ever GREATLY reduce our crime rate. My position is that, though there are many other factors
involved, every time, in the history of the United States, that more firearms were available to the law abiding public, our violent crime rate has
went down. That statement also holds true for the period of 1993 to 2010. In 1993 we had 24,526 murders and non-negligent homicides. In 2010, despite
ever growing numbers of legal gun sales, we were down to 14,748.
My assertion is that legal firearm sales, and legal firearm ownership, are only a very small factor in overall violence rates here in the US.
You would be one of the most heavily armed civilian populations yet you are all more fearful about crime and home invasions than the rest of
the world (civilised Western world)
That is only an assumption on your part. And a false on at that. I haven't locked my automobiles, or home, in over 25 years. There are many here that
can make similar claims. Can you honestly make a claim like that?
And as the article you linked stated different things count as crimes in different places, Im guessing if everyone who went to the emergency
room in the US as a result of violence was listed in the figures and not just reported crimes it would tell a different story.
You obviously don't understand the way crime stats are collected here in the US. If a doctor suspects a wound is caused by violence, it IS his/her
LEGAL OBLIGATION to report that injury to the police.
Wouldnt a can of mace be just as good as a gun?
It's hard to believe you are so naive as to ask such a stupid question, but I'll answer it anyway: Considering the range of a can of mace, and the
range of a firearm, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
surely for a gun to be a deterrent the perp would need to know you have it, but then how often would you actually get the chance to pull it out
prior to knowing you needed to?
Another silly question, but: More often than you obviously think.
Unless you walk around with it in your hand ready to fire the gun as safety/deterrent argument is BS
That is only another improper assumption on your part.
Despite all evidence and common sense Americans still delude themselves into thinking guns make them safer.
There we have a comment that is only meant to insult Americans. Why am I not surprised?
Just admit you like guns and would want one even if you knew no criminals had them
You're pretty damn good at making false assumptions. I don't currently own any firearms, nor am I currently interested in purchasing any.
Now that I have diligently answered ALL of your questions, without making snide comments about the populations of either of the countries you claimed
as "home", I feel that you owe me an answer to the following:
shows that the United Kingdom
has the highest violent crime rate in the entire UNITED STATES of EUROPE, why do you obviously feel that firearms are the primary CAUSE of violent