Should Christians Carry Firearms?

[METL]

Excellent article by the way.  Thanks for sharing.

[gryphon]

WHere do you get your statistics for this paragraph: 

In a country with practically zero firearms ownership, the violence in the United Kingdom dwarfs that of the United States.  The rate of violent assaults resulting in serious bodily injury in England and Wales is three times higher than the United States.  The rate of violent assaults resulting in serious bodily injury in Scotland is six times higher than the United States.  The overall violent crime rate for the UK is higher than Austria, South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and on and on.  In fact, the overall violent crime rate for the UK is over four times higher than the United States, and they have no firearms.


I should like to see them.

The cites are at the end of the essay.  These are the two for that paragraph.  You can also go to the Harvard study to find the stats for firearms ownership.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html

Assaults
Definition: 'Assault' means physical attack against the body of another person resulting in serious bodily injury; excluding indecent/sexual assault; threats and slapping/punching. 'Assault' leading to death should also be excluded.

Code: [Select]

Rate/100,000    2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009

USA             294.9     288.2     290.5     291.8     286.4     276.1     262.2
England/Wales   862.8     967.3   1,013.7     939.4     832.9     769.9     729.8
Scotland      1,232.5   1,584.9   1,542.8   1,655.1   1,545.9   1,545.7   1,487.2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The U.S. has an overall violent crime rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, and the U.K. 2,034.

U.S. - 466
Can - 935
U.K. - 2,034

[SteveS]

Great article.  I agree 100% and have had numerous discussions with other Christians on this topic.  I think I said this on the other forum, but the cases you mention talk about a 'duty' in regards to a tort.  Yes, it seems to be nit-picky, but lawyers are nit-picky and we get paid to be this way.  I believe that if you call the police, they will do their best to help you and aren't going to decline, citing any of those cases. 

People that believe the police can always be there to protect them are fools, though.  It is like saying that you are't going to have fire extinguishers and smoke detectors because the fire department will watch out for you.  IMO, the best argument is that the police can't be everywhere, all the time, and are limited in their resources.

Steve

[TheQ]

People that believe the police can always be there to protect them are fools, though.  It is like saying that you are't going to have fire extinguishers and smoke detectors because the fire department will watch out for you.  IMO, the best argument is that the police can't be everywhere, all the time, and are limited in their resources.

Steve

I agree, obviously.

Even if we multiplied the number of officers we have on the street 100 times, they still wouldn't be able to react fast enough for the seconds that your life will depend on. Plus, who wants a police state?

[SteveS]

I agree, obviously.

Even if we multiplied the number of officers we have on the street 100 times, they still wouldn't be able to react fast enough for the seconds that your life will depend on. Plus, who wants a police state?

How does the saying go, "when seconds count, they are minutes away."

In some places it can be a very long wait.  At my parent's place up in the UP, unless there is a patrol car close, they are probably 20 or so minutes away from police. 

[gryphon]

who wants a police state?

This person:

Some years ago while serving on the NRA Board of Directors I was also part of the NRA Speaker's Bureau, which provides speakers on 2nd Amendment issues by request.

HQ called me and told me that they had a request from a professor for me to address his class at Northern Kentucky University (can't remember the subject).

With classes, whether high school or college, it's always my habit to not give a speech but to find out what their class discussions have entailed and have them ask me questions as a representative of the NRA. I was well received by the class, there were plenty in attendance who understood their 2nd amendment rights and were fiercely protective of them, and we were having a lively discussion about basic civil liberties when a young lady offered the opinion that she would have no problem with having government authorities enter her home periodically, search the place and go through her personal belongings in order to ensure that she was doing nothing "wrong."

As soon as she shut her woefully misguided little piehole you could have heard a pin drop.

http://ingunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/232580-college_class_report.html#post3258080

[gryphon]

Great article.

It's not an article.  I wrote it.   

Although maybe it's an article.    But I think it would have to gain widespread publication to achieve that status. 

  the cases you mention talk about a 'duty' in regards to a tort.  Yes, it seems to be nit-picky, but lawyers are nit-picky and we get paid to be this way.

Okay, let's explore this.  You might argue the police have a legal duty, a legal responsibility to protect me.  That's what you are saying, right?  What if they fail to perform their duty?  What if they fail to execute their responsibility?  If they are really legally responsible for protecting me, surely there is some consequence for them failing their duty, their responsibility, right?

No.

On the one hand you are saying the police have a legal duty and a legal responsibility to protect me.

On the other hand we know that they actually don't, because if they don't perform their legal duties, their legal responsibilities, their legal obligations, there are no legal consequences, no legal repercussions.

So tell me how they are legally responsible to protect me.  Somewhere along the line I've missed it.

[TheQ]

I think SteveS indicated they'd do their best. I believe they will. But what gryphon is contending is when "their best" isn't good enough, there is no legal consequences for them.

[gryphon]

I think SteveS indicated they'd do their best. I believe they will.

You'd be naive, then.  At least in some parts of the country.

I grew up in "the Region," NW Indiana: Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, Whiting.  Cops wouldn't always come to your rescue.  For example, if there was a call on Michigan Avenue in East Chicago, the police would stage themselves on either end of the street, then wait fifteen minutes before coming in.  That was for their safety.  They'd basically wait until the natives were done, then come in and clean up the mess.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression.  By natives I mean the people native to the area.  In this case natives would most likely be Hispanics/Mexicans.  But there could also be blacks with a smattering of Polish and hillbillies.

I used to put myself in some dangerous situations 30-35 years ago.  I wouldn't do that again without at least two pistols on me, but back then it was what I was used to.

Chicago was worse.  When I rode around with my friend who lived there he would point out a lot of things I didn't notice.  Thing is, in Chicago it is hidden.  Even if it is reported it is hidden,  Or ignored.

The Calumet Region is really pretty fascinating.

[TheQ]

I'm trying to be PC, cut me some slack, necro-poster

Do you like the ladies when they're cold also?

[SteveS]

There is a difference between a duty and a "tort duty."  The government, for the most part, can only be sued if they consent to be sued. Throughout history, this has been expanded by case law and statute. Those cases stand for the idea that police cannot be sued for failing to protect you and that they have no tortious duty to do so. You may want to pick up a torts book and read it. These cases are well known and I am not really taking an unusual position. This is well accepted.

[gryphon]

I understand what you are saying, Steve.  I was just replying to Q.

[METL]

Gryphon just wanted to pass me in post count...        

[gryphon]