Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
I know your mind is as closed on the subject as mine is.
Approaching any discussion with a closed mind is counterproductive.

But I live in a society that is largely free of guns and relatively free of gun crime (even Reason has to admit that our murder rate was lower than yours, although it then went on to suggest, somewhat unreasonably, in my view, that our guns laws were therefore a failure and USA would be unwise to follow them). You live in a society where guns are seen as virtuous somehow, and in some places it is mandatory to possess them! Who stands the greater chance of being shot? Who is the more likely to shoot someone? What are the chances that the shooting is over something less than a life-or-death situation?
One point made in, I think, both of those articles was that the crime rates were reported differently in the two nations. Here in the US, apparently, they try to consider every homicide as a murder, regardless of the circumstances, while in the UK, they are much more selective. My understanding of what the articles stated is that, if a person kills another person and then, through legal manipulation, plea-bargains down to a lesser offense, the police apparently reclassify the crime as something other than murder.

Both of these stands make sense to me! In the US the more liberal sections of the government wish to inflate the statistics, trying to terrorize civilians into giving up their freedoms in lieu of some nebulous safety (see everything which has happened here since 9-11). While in the UK they are trying to pacify their citizens into believing that the crime statistics are much lower than they are, in an effort to justify their loss of freedoms.

I am particularly disturbed by the concept of people who do defend themselves being treated more harshly than the criminals who attacked them. At least in this country, supposedly, the criminals are responsible for any outcome resulting from the commission of a crime. That means that, if two thugs invade my home and I kill one of them, the other criminal gets charged with murder, since the death of his partner was a direct result of their felonious assault.

But let's face it, folks. It's much easier to rationalize the loss of your ability to defend yourself by decrying anyone who has the temerity to want to defend him or herself. It's much more difficult to admit, to yourself and the public, that, "Yes, if attacked I will protect myself and my family and even my property, with deadly force if necessary. I won't like it, and won't provoke it, but if it comes down to it, I will shoot to kill. And I will accept the sleepless nights and soul-searching that will come from taking another life. But I will also accept the thanks and love of my intact family."