[lokken]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

"Gun crime' is a meaningless statistic anyway and focusing on it is fairly disingenous anyway. All that matters is the crime level, not the instruments which were used to commit these crimes.

This is absolutely true. I don't think the availability of guns stops people who are always going to be career criminals, not all. But I think it does affect those in society who are in situations vulnerable to poor judgment in situations of anger, emotion, desperation and mental trauma. All 4 of these are fairly common and I do not think allying poor judgment with guns is a very good idea.

Except it is their right in many places; several US states have far more sensible self defence laws than the UK does. In order to judge the effects that this has, you would have to actually look at the crime rates for these places. All of your other points are similar - I dont understand why people are so focused on constructing a priori fantasy worlds about what might happen in countries with legalised firearm ownership instead of actually looking at what does happen. The crime rate figures are all public, you can find them in a few seconds on google.

I am looking at what might happen in the UK if guns were legalised by looking at what does happen in our criminal law and how and why people end up getting killed. Other countries culture to guns do not concern me - if the United States is happy with their situation given their countries history, good for them. But I don't think it's suitable for us.

EDIT: You might ask why the criminal law is relevant. It's relevant because in analysing these cases, the most important factors are motivations and intentions once you've established the facts. You look at why people commit crime and do things the way they did, be it rational or irrational but there are general trends you can spot.

The UK self defence law is pretty good by the way. If you have it any other way, you get people killing others at the slightest fear because they believe its their right to do so, when morally it may not be the case. I'm of the view that people like Martin absolutely deserved to get banged up, had he got off we'd have had more people getting shot when it wasn't warranted. Intruders are committing moral wrongs, that does not mean they deserve to get shot and potentially given a death sentence by someone who isn't a judge and jury. Likewise, simply giving others fear shouldn't necessarily result in you being shot either. That's why our laws on excessive self defence are so strict.

evidence please.

I am just giving you my opinion, based on what I've looked at in the criminal law. Would you like to give us evidence of how liberalising gun laws would improve the situation? Are there any statistics from the future you'ld like to bring from your time machine?

Like you said above, only way you are going to cut gun usage is by cutting crime. By making guns legal, you open up several more avenues for ordinary people to commit crime. I think it's a fairly simple logical connection.