h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Did you actually try to say that countries where ownership of guns is not allowed are on the brink of becoming a new Nazi-Germany? That is clearly nonsense.
In colonial times, the need for owning a gun was real. You needed to defend yourself, because there was no law to speak of, nor were there lawenforcers. That should not be the case anymore. The government has a duty: to make the citizens feel safe. Actually, citizens need to BE safe, the feeling of safety can be quite false...
If a government is failing in that, the answer should not be that all people have to have guns. It would be far better to do something about the unsafeness (not English, but forgive me on this).

"In colonial times, the need for owning a gun was real. You needed to defend yourself, because there was no law to speak of, nor were there lawenforcers."

This was not even true along the frontier, nor in the Mild West of the next century.

"Actually, citizens need to BE safe, the feeling of safety can be quite false."

Whether this is even possible is a matter of opinion. Though if Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron shows up, I'm sure that he, as an ex-cop, can tell you quite authoritatively that the police are not responsible for keeping you safe. If you think about the role of the police at all, you'll realize that except in select circumstances, all the police can do is clean up the mess afterwards. That mess could be you.

"If a government is failing in that, the answer should not be that all people have to have guns. It would be far better to do something about the unsafeness (not English, but forgive me on this)."

Do something? And what would that be?

Enforce laws, give appropriate funding to the policeforce, to name just two. If the rate of solving crimes is extremely low (say 25%), than it's not really strange that people do not feel safe, and will take matters into their own hands, i.e. buying guns.
All societies have laws. The reason they have them is to ensure the safety of their citizens. What we see today is that the governments are by and large neglecting this responsibility.
I don't mean to say people will stop buying guns if the chances of their robber will get caught, but would-be robbers will decide not to commit a robbery because they will get caught.
I think (I have no proof) that it will be cheaper in the long run to make the extra effort. Damages because of crime are probably higher than the money it will cost to prevent them. Not only that, but the population will spend their own money differently: instead of individual crime prevention, they will invest in developing their businesses. Which brings me to another point: collective crime prevention is way more efficient than individual crime prevention.

Does this make my comments earlier a bit more clear?

"Enforce laws, give appropriate funding to the policeforce"

We're already supposed to be enforcing laws. And throwing more money at a problem doesn't make it go away. If you tripled the size of the police force there still wouldn't be a cop around when you needed one. It is not humanly possible to have them everywhere all the time.

"If the rate of solving crimes is extremely low (say 25%), than it's not really strange that people do not feel safe, and will take matters into their own hands, i.e. buying guns."

Extra funding to the police force can only go so far to increase the rate of solved crimes. More money doesn't make you smarter. If a case has no leads, you can't buy them.

"collective crime prevention is way more efficient than individual crime prevention."

This has been my contention all along. Why leave it up to just the police force? Crime prevention is EVERYONE's responsibility. But we're too scared to get involved, because we'll get hurt. How much safer would a night-shift store clerk feel if he felt that, if someone held him to gunpoint, the chances were good that a couple patrons in the store would be able to help?

"We're already supposed to be enforcing laws. And throwing more money at a problem doesn't make it go away. If you tripled the size of the police force there still wouldn't be a cop around when you needed one. It is not humanly possible to have them everywhere all the time."

Exactly: supposed to. And why isn't it done then?Response time is just a minor factor in the whole. Not all laws are enforced. Why? Because the police is too busy with other tasks, the necessary officers just can't be spared.

"Extra funding to the police force can only go so far to increase the rate of solved crimes. More money doesn't make you smarter. If a case has no leads, you can't buy them."

You don't have to buy leads. What needs to be done is that not only the big cases get done, just because they get media attention, and to save face those crimes must be dealt with. The small crimes too need to be prosecuted. Some time ago, my bike was stolen. I only went to the police to be able to get a statement from them for the insurance. Not because I have any hope they will catch the thief, because they won't. Not because there's a lack of clues, but because they don't do anything about it. And that's is just my experience, in the last few months. There are others.
Me owning a gun would not make matters better, it would make them worse. Because if I am able to get a gun, so are some people I know and I wouldn't trust them with anything remotely as dangerous as a gun.

"This has been my contention all along. Why leave it up to just the police force? Crime prevention is EVERYONE's responsibility. But we're too scared to get involved, because we'll get hurt. How much safer would a night-shift store clerk feel if he felt that, if someone held him to gunpoint, the chances were good that a couple patrons in the store would be able to help?"

What you are describing, by the way, is NOT collective crimeprevention. It is still individual crimeprevention (or an attempt at it) on a larger scale. And all the more volatile for it. A parton of the store is not able to assess the situation. Nor is he or she allowed to take matters into their own hands. Why on earth would you allow people who aren't even allowed to write out a speedingticket to pull out their gun to 'prevent crime'? As if their pulling out of guns is not a crime in itself?
And it is not EVERYONE's responsibility to keep us safe or to prevent crime. It is the responsibility of trained people for just that task: to know what the law is, and to stop people from breaking it. OUR responsibility is to provide them with the means to do that. It does cost money, and we all hate paying taxes. But what would you rather pay for: a good police officer, or the damage to society because we did too little too late?

"And why isn't it done then?Response time is just a minor factor in the whole. Not all laws are enforced. Why? Because the police is too busy with other tasks, the necessary officers just can't be spared."

Good. You recognize the problem. That's the first step towards finding the solution.

"What needs to be done is that not only the big cases get done, just because they get media attention, and to save face those crimes must be dealt with. The small crimes too need to be prosecuted. Some time ago, my bike was stolen. I only went to the police to be able to get a statement from them for the insurance. Not because I have any hope they will catch the thief, because they won't. Not because there's a lack of clues, but because they don't do anything about it. And that's is just my experience, in the last few months. There are others."

Apples and oranges, dude. We're talking about preventing violent crime, not petty theft. Though if violent crime goes down, the police would have more resources to pursue smaller crimes.

"Me owning a gun would not make matters better, it would make them worse. Because if I am able to get a gun, so are some people I know and I wouldn't trust them with anything remotely as dangerous as a gun."

People you wouldn't trust already have guns.

"What you are describing, by the way, is NOT collective crimeprevention. It is still individual crimeprevention (or an attempt at it) on a larger scale."

You are using a strange definition of the word "collective." A collective effort involves everyone.

"A parton of the store is not able to assess the situation."

Does it take a rocket scientist to recognize an armed man? Or are you just the type of person who needs action movies explained to you?

"Nor is he or she allowed to take matters into their own hands."

Well, obviously, that would have to be changed, wouldn't it? Here in California it was perfectly legal to carry a firearm so long as it was not concealed, but carried openly where everyone could see it, as recently as the 1960's. And yet, somehow, there weren't Wild West shootouts on the Grapevine (unlike today). In fact, the Wild West wasn't even very wild.

Why was the law changed? Because angry, scary black guys were carrying shotguns in public because they had a very real and rational fear of being shot for saying black men should be equal to white men. If Martin Luther King Jr. had been a Black Panther, he might still be alive today.

"Why on earth would you allow people who aren't even allowed to write out a speedingticket to pull out their gun to 'prevent crime'?"

Apples and oranges. Are you saying a traffic violation is the same as a violent crime? And we're talking about prevention, not punishment. If you notice someone weaving and speeding behind you, you are within your legal rights to prevent that person from speeding by blocking them in. Drivers are notorious for passing along the shoulder on interchanges and exits around here. I'm notorious for keeping my car half in the shoulder to keep them from doing it.

"As if their pulling out of guns is not a crime in itself?"

I doubt very much that even in Britain, where firearms are limited to such a huge degree, there is a law preventing a person who is legally possessing that gun from brandishing it in self-defense or in the prevention of a crime. If there is such a law, what jury would convict?

"And it is not EVERYONE's responsibility to keep us safe or to prevent crime."

So it's not your responsibility to keep yourself safe? There's no law saying you have to discard damaged electrical cords, clean up spills, or use oven mitts when handling pans at the stove, but I'm betting you do. I bet you also reduce your risk of crime by keeping your wallet closed, locking your home and car, and looking around you before you use the ATM.

"It is the responsibility of trained people for just that task: to know what the law is, and to stop people from breaking it. OUR responsibility is to provide them with the means to do that. It does cost money, and we all hate paying taxes. But what would you rather pay for: a good police officer, or the damage to society because we did too little too late?"

I know it's very popular to abdicate all personal responsibility and dump it on the government. "I don't have to help the poor, I pay taxes." "I don't have to get involved in my children's school, I pay taxes. I don't have to help keep my community safe, I pay taxes."

It's very popular because it appeals to our nature to be lazy and avoid blame. So we construct Somebody Else's Problem fields. It's also morally reprehensible. And yet, people wonder where the sense of community went.

Collective means that society as a whole is doing something. If a lot of people were carrying guns, it still would not mean that it is done by the society. The point you made about not being a rocketscientist and still being able to see a man waving a gun about is valid. It is another matter still to be able to see someone waving a gun about and being able to decide wether it would be best to pull out a gun aswell (and thus forcing the robber to shoot the hostage/you/innocent bystander) or letting him go, following him and arresting him at a safer location.
About the 'not being allowed to write out a speeding ticket'-bit, you are missing my point entirely. We, the people, have decided that only certain people are allowed to enforce laws. Those people know the laws, are trained in what to do to enforce them. We are not.
I was not talking about the severity of the violation/crime. Dogmatically speaking however, that doesn't really matter. The outcome of breaking a law that regulates the maximum speeds on roads and a law about not killing people is obviously not even in the same ballpark. The decision about which law to follow and which not to is basically the same. The offender knows its not allowed, and decides to do it anyway.
It is not my right (nor yours) to punish people if the violate a law. If you decide to drive on the shoulder with half your car, you are violating the law yourself. It is simply not allowed to do that, not even if you do it to prevent somebbody else doing it. The police, however, is allowed to do that. The police is allowed to drive as fast as the patrolcar is able to get to a crimescene as fast as possible. Civilians aren't. A policeman is allowed to arrest somebbody, and only up to a point so are civilians. But we are not allowed to use force in doing that. Even worse, if we get injured, the insurance can decide not to pay the hospital bill, because we were injured in a situation we were not supposed to put ourselves into: trying to stop a robbery by pulling out a gun and as a result of that getting shot.

<>

Society is made up of the sum total of lots and lots of individuals. If individuals are doing nothing, society is doing nothing.

For example, fighting in WWII was a collective effort for the entire US society, as every citizen made a contribution in some way. Those who were not involved directly in the fighting or in a support role still contributed materials to be used in the manufacture of war materials. Homemakers collected and turned in their bacon grease. Children walked around their neighborhoods looking for pennies. The elderly cleaned out their attics and salvaged old metal objects.

<>

<>

And you have missed my point. Crime prevention and law enforcement are two completely different things. And citizens are empowered to prevent crime, by law. For example, here's a CEO who committed assault by his own admission, and nobody in law enforcement seems to be interested in prosecuting: http://www.sgvtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,205~12220~2758724,00.html

<>

Not true. We are allowed to use reasonable force, which means we can't hurt anyone (except in self-defense or the protection of others) or endanger others. The law specifies you can use restraints and the minimum amount of force required to detain the suspect. For instance, security guards are often armed to some degree, and are trained in the same rules of the use of force as police. But since they are not government agents, citizen's arrests are the only kind they are allowed to make.

<>

Straw man. HMOs/health insurance providers are required to provide the services detailed at the rates specified in the contract. They are not allowed to make value judgements based on the circumstances surrounding an incident. Making care conditional on circumstances would mean patients begin lying to doctors, and that's a good way to undermine the quality of health care and the validity of health statistics gathered from hospitals.

they are great if they are kill-o-zap guns!

Unfortunately Chuckles, who started this thread, bailed out and left us with a question that answers itself. No guns, no gun deaths; it's that simple. The question he should have asked, "Given that guns are here and aren't going away, what should we do about them?" is, unfortunately, not so simple. A US Congressional committee examined the problem in many countries, and found no correlation between laws, gun ownership, and crime. There were countries with strict laws and a high murder rate next to countries with lax laws and a low rate. Apparently its the society, not the guns. (i.e., guns don't kill people, etc.) The English tend to believe (have been taught to believe) that their low murder rate is due to their gun laws, but in fact the laws only began in the early 'twenties as a reaction to the Red Scare, and have never had a significant effect on the murder rate. Their rate probably has more to do with the fact that for over a century, any time someone was murdered, someone was hung. Once they abandoned this salutary habit, the rate rose. The US is believed to contain some 70 million handguns. At that rate less than three hundredths of one percent are used to kill any one in a given year (including accident, suicide, and police killing). The rest are used to prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year (that's 6800 crimes a day, folks), most without firing a shot. When shots are fired, civilians kill two to three times as many criminals in a given year as the police, and with a far lower rate of wrongful killings. Mandatory licensing laws have always led to a reduction in crime, not to the Dodge City bloodbaths predicted by some.

I don't know the answer. Anyone who wants to find facts, rather than rely on his gut feelings, can find plenty on the web. I have no more to say, except for a quote I found recently:
"An armed man is a free man. An unarmed man is a subject. A disarmed man is a slave"

The deterrent argument works for me.

I feel that having a handgun for home defence is appropriate, if one lives in a high-crime area. Keep it in the home, though.

If not that, then a conspicuous sign:
"This house is protected by Smith&Wesson".

If the potential burglar is literate, something like that works wonders.

We will always have a number of sickos and idiots in society. Some of them have handguns, and these folks are the ones in the headlines. (Beside the usual career criminals, of course.) The ones that shoot to resolve a road-rage situation, for example. And the miscreants that massacre schoolchildren and office workers.

A sidearm is not a toy or macho talisman. It is an incredibly convenient way to kill, or to get oneself killed. Weigh the risks, weigh the odds, and over 99% of the time the killing force is not necessary.

BTW, I'm not holding. The personal risks where I live and work are not enough to warrant owning a weapon. If I had one and was compelled to use it, knowing my luck, I would end up second-best in a gunfight.

Nevertheless, criminals respect a weapon in your hand much more than they respect any law.

unless the gun is a kill-o-zap gun ,guns are a bad idea all round(wether it's for hunting OR killing people).no,i'm not a vegie or a hippi.

It's always good to see another win for the good guys.

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/4702890/detail.html

So, if whether or not guns arebad, then nukes are worse. What about yet to be invented sci-fict. weaponry, such as laser stuff and the dreaded retro-esque, classic "ray gun?" or a "particle-cannon?" are those also good or bad? .
Or on that matter whatabout wizardry? getting turned into stuff or given very strange bad luck can't be good, can it?

Oh and I forgot, what about, sticks and swords?