: youve just shown why they are not. "neighbour, drinking buddy, and say anotehr third are 'know him from around here, never talked to him/much' with the other third being shop assistants, etc, taxi drivers" are not "very close."No, teh middle third are reasonably close, and social situations in which you would not expect to be on your guard, with a Gun drawn, ready to be drawn. Add to all that, roughly 25% are actually very close, so...
: Apparently you dont, I think its because your reducing it to specific situations all the time rather than considering it holistically.
Contrasting Holistic to Specificty is misleading, the specific situations make up teh holistic model. I am precisely saying that overall, the number of lives saved may nmot be of sufficient benefit to bother basing public order policy on private gun ownership.
:Instead of saying 'if many people owned guns would crime be reduced?'
Thats exactly what I am asking, and showing that overall, I don't think it will ahve much effect.
:The first argument is sufficient (that guns a re used in self defence) and the second (anecdotal evidence) is usable and rational with regard to human behaviour.
No, you're avoiding the point- in America you allready have Private Gun Ownership Can you show crime to be significantly lower than countries which do not- if you then look at the different economic conditions can you find factors which might make economics the determining factor in crime? Clearly, America does not have less crime despite widespread private ownership of weapons.
: You being in charge of law and order in Britain; Would you agree to disarm the general public whilst knowing that criminals will remain armed and people would be unable to defend themselves against such, nor would criminals ever fear any matched resistence?
Thats the situation we have here, and crime rates are still lower than in the US.
: unless there happens to be an armed policeman with in 10 seconds of a crime?
British police aren't armed, and you're taking refuge in Hypothetics when I specifically challeneged you with the Actuality of American crime despite Gun Ownership.
: I pu it that your model is precariously balanced on a sequence of dubious assumptions about criminal and general behaviour.
No, because the most through research shows that eocnomic conditions cause crime, thus the best way, holistically is to reduce crime by improving living conditions.
: Most victims of non-gangster crimes were not happy-go-lucky, wide open doors, cheery verbal abuse types - they werent inviting attack - you now where the 'dont be in the situation' argument leads - that you should cower inside at night, that women should dress dowdy - its an ever decreasing circle of self imprisonment.
Erm, no, I was speaking in terms of total public policy which should be to reduce incidence of attacks in teh first place, by improving social conditions.
: The martial arts thing is arbitrary too, no doubt the lawmaker was heard to mutter 'its not fair you know, not cricket'
No, being a trained Martial Artists means you are permenantly in posession of an offensive weapon- we are not permitted to carry any offensive weapon (Baseball bats sell by the ton here, but no bugger plays, Cricket bats are unweildy weapons), the usual burden of guilt is reversed for weapons offenses, we have to proove it wasn't being carried as a weapon.
: I suppled some context elsewhere. I do think more than one sentence would have been useful here though, with some specifics around self defence.
Perhaps it was considered too obvious to mention?
: Actually some UK case law suggests otherwise. The defence of self-defence is to be found in common law .
But it has to be shown to be proportional, the evil 'Reasonable Man' of british Law rears his ugly head- would a reasonable person have acted this way- if, for instance, i killed my attacker, but it was shown I could have fled and called the police, I'd be knacked.
: There is also a statutory defence relating to prevention of crime under s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967. You do not have to wait for the assailant to strike the first blow - pre-emptive strikes are permitted (a case - Beckford 1988) but equally if there is time to warn the police, then the necessity does not exist.
But such a premptive blow must be based upon sound reason to beleive there was a danger, and must be proprtional to the trheat- i.e. just enough to imoblise the assailant.
: In other words you might over react objectively speaking, but still be in your rights because your perception matters.
It matters, but the Reasonable Man is the bar by which your perception is measured, if a reasonable man could perceive....
: You wouldnt have to have one. feeling safer is not the same as being safer.
Pretty much, in public order terms, they are.
