[Miisa]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

But obviously there are many cases of people who are in fact out to prey on others and do so. That's what violent crime is, and the numbers demonstrate this fact beyond any remotely reasonable doubt (i.e. we're safer than we tend to think, but violent crime certainly does exist, and at an unacceptable level).

But is the answer to have people arming themselves order to make them feel more safe, when, in reality, it turns out they are more likely to be injured by their own weapon than have it prevent injury to them?

And are there really that many psychopaths out there who enjoy hurting people and don't do crimes for gain? If so, that should be a major focus of preventative action now, so that there would be fewer of them 25 years don the line.

The arms race has gone on throughout history. It's pretty naive, quite frankly, to presume that if the good guys didn't get guns the bad guys therefore wouldn't feel the need either. That's plainly backwards on its face. Those who aren't interested in preying on their fellow man have no need to acquire a tactical advantage over him either. On the other hand those who do want to prey on their fellow man do need a tactical advantage over him or it won't work. If "predators" were okay with only accepting that which their fellow man were willing to share, it would be accepting charity rather than theft. The need the good guys feel to arm themselves is about defending themselves from the bad guys once they're armed. This is one of the most consistent patterns in human history.

At any rate, you're onto something most anti-gun types desperately try not to recognize--this arms race. I agree that as long as a society can keep guns at bay it's clearly desirable. The problem is when the arms race in such a society turns and goes the way it always has throughout history, when predators (aggressors) can prey on their victims without enough imposed risk to provide a very effective disincentive.

And I think it is amazing naive to think that crime will somehow stop happening because of gun proliferation amongst the population, as if reaching some sort of level of mutual assured destruction, if that could even be achieved. My point is not that crimes will not happen if there are no guns, merely that lethal crimes are rarer. There will be robberies, there will be drunken fights, there will be feuding neighbours. But it will not be as easy to kill someone, be it in anger, fear or by accident, just because the gun was right there.

In my experience the anti-gun mindset is usually driven largely by a gross misunderstanding regarding where the risk regarding guns really rests and how much risk there really is elsewhere.

Oh, you are preaching to the minister's wife here. Half my life I have been surrounded by guns, married to someone who is an active shooter and a former professional. I agree that guns are NOT the problem. The attitudes that allow guns to be seen as "just a tool" are fine in a frontier society where snakes and bears and dragons lurk behind every bush, but when they are carried in plain view to intimidate fellow people because they are acceptable weapons to use against humans you are in a frightening place. That is the point a firearm goes from a "tool" to a "weapon".

Originally Posted by Miisa

So there's an alarming proliferation of guns in the UK, yet there is a criminal confidence that there will be no "heroes" trying to protect mere property, therefore no need to use guns making the crime more severe ... so why is there an alarming proliferation of guns, and how can criminals feel as you say if there is? I agree protecting property is an invalid use of lethal weapons, by the way, but if your home is invaded while you're in it the predator has already spent any benefit of doubt, so the predator will have to create that benefit in order for you to reasonably give it (i.e. he has to bug the fuck out and/or cease and desist any aggressive behavior). And it's important to understand that the predator is the one who is entirely responsible for imposing the situation on both the intended prey and himself--he's forced the IP into a situation in which the IP is justifiably likely to feel pressed to choose between himself/his family and the predator, and that's not just a personal choice, because someone who preys on his fellow man is a clear threat to others as well. No man is an island, as the kids say.

From what I understand the UK is seeing this shift in the arms race, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is the that the culture has by and large developed a naive view of violence and a reactionary anti-weapon/anti-serious self-defense mindset. As a result it's most likely that the predators will at some point enjoy fairly safe and free predation. Hopefully that can be staved off somehow, but I seriously doubt we're going to solve the underlying problems and turn it all around before it's gone bad even if they can for the time being.

Um, I can't vouch for the UK, but I understand it has a rather violent criminal subculture yet surprisingly few murders. Also, the violence doesn't seem to bleed over onto the general population as much as you might expect. I am in Finland, where there are statistically a LOT of guns, but they are seen carried by hunters (in the forest) or sports shooters (at the range), never in public, I had never even seen a gun until I was in my 20's. Any infringement, such as even displaying your firearm in an inappropriate place or storing them outside of a safe, will lead to at least fines and a loss of licences, and this is actually enforced, not just a lip service law. The gun culture in society is completely the opposite here to the frontier mentality, despite the numbers of guns and the proximity of wildlife. I believe Canada has a similar situation.
Laws have been tightened further due to unfortunate isolated incidents such as school shootings, but I think all reasonable people agree that having school personnel armed and thus risking turning any given classroom into a range is not the way to prevent such relatively rare occurrences.

That presumes the arms race isn't beyond the threshold I spoke of--when predatory violent criminals can too easily access and use guns with too little disincentive to use them. When you get to that point adding guns to the prey side of the equation just makes more formidable, less desirable prey. It really doesn't require more than a very basic understanding of violence and predatory (criminal) behavior to understand that, when predators can prey on their victims too easily and the authorities can't protect them, those targeted as prey need to be allowed to more effectively defend themselves (mainly those who are less able to do so already).

This is precisely the corner you are in, painted there actively (and I think maybe intentionally) by certain interest groups.
And you know that guy desperate for a fix is going to rob someone to pay his dealer, is it really socially acceptable to just keep passing the victim buck to more vulnerable members of society? Is that really the broader plan, that everyone will need to be armed or assuredly be robbed? I mean, really, the lawless Wild West? I know there are people who haven't fallen for the fearmongers and gun salesmen, who know that keeping the guy from robbing is better. Let him get help, or better yet, intervene ten years ago when he was still just a member of a risk group.

Oh yeah, that would be infringing on individuals and their right to choose. Must keep up the illusion of free will. And the rights of the individual must trump those of the society and the people in general, or so it seems?

If so, it's working. We're in fact getting less violent. Is that the case in the UK as well? or is it maybe just the case that the UK is staying relatively less violent and not shifting significantly one way or the other?

Again, it's Finland, can't vouch for the UK, except to say that it turns out Britons trust the police, only the NHS was trusted more in a recent survey.

Outsourcing ones' security to the government is a critical feature of all societies as they develop. An army rather than militia, police and law proceeding rather than witch hunts and lynchings, fines and incarceration rather than an eye for an eye.


As for the thread title, I always read it as "Mormons with guns". Which would be actually interesting.