Range Time

[Crow]

Every use of force continuum in the world lists "knife" as a deadly weapon, rightfully. You do not escalate, you respond to the level of force.

The universal law enforcement response to a deadly weapon is lethal force. Not neccessarily to kill him, but to stop the threat, whatever that takes in the specific situation. I'm not sure about other countries or states, but where I live, the deadly force laws apply the same to police as they do to citizens.

You are not escalating the situation by pulling a gun, but responding to the threat which has been prevented.

I'll say it again. A knife is a deadly weapon. "Hoping" that a criminal won't "escalate" (lol) further is a really risky proposition.

[Bulldog Psion]

I wonder if this is an American thing or not. Does this risk exist in the same measure in, say, the UK? Or do home invaders, knowing their targets won't have guns, just have more guts and trust that they won't be killed, this being more wiling to let those they find live? I should look that up.

I'm certainly no expert, but I have heard from several sources (whose reliability I am uncertain of) that a lot of American burglaries occur during the day when the house occupants are away at work and school, precisely because the burglars are non-violent and don't want to encounter anyone.

"Hot prowl burglaries," in which the burglar enters while people are home, are considered to be much more dangerous.

So it could be a filtering process. Burglars have the same likelihood to be violent in the US and UK, but the non-violent UK burglars will also perform what are thought of as hot prowl burglaries here. In the US, that large segment is shunted towards the non-confrontational daylight burglary by higher gun ownership among the citizenry, leaving a larger relative (but not absolute) percentage of dangerous creeps among the hot prowl home invaders.

Not sure if it's relevant, but the American murder rate is 4.7 per 100,000, which puts the States almost precisely in the middle, with 102 countries having a lower rate and 104 having a higher rate. The U.K.'s rate is 1 per 100,000. Of course, one could argue that it's probably not a difference in the nature of burglary, but the fact that the drug pushers kill each other a lot. To underline that, Mexico has a homicide rate of 21.5 per 100,000. The UK doesn't share a border with a country with that kind of homicide rate.

Another possibly interesting statistic -- a professor here has collected statistics that suggest about 1 in 8 potential confrontational crimes in the United States are prevented by the possible victim showing, or occasionally using, a firearm. Of course, that doesn't count crimes where there is no confrontation, such as the aforementioned burglars who break in when nobody is home.

[SiuiS]

Oh right, I had stuff quoted on computer. Haha.

In the same vein, here is a brief overview of Canadian gun law:

Spoiler: Canadian gun law

Show

Overall, it's more similar to the British one, though slightly less stifling (probably because 'Murrica is right next door).

Wanting to own a gun for self-defence is a huge no-no. Pretty sure it puts you on a bunch of police watchlists. Basically the police have to demonstrate to courts that your life is in imminent danger and police may not be able to protect you. So, unless you're in witness protection or something, you're not getting a gun for self-defense, and if you have one, you weren't allowed to use it for that until very recently, when it became legal to defend your property from invaders.

Otherwise, we have what's called a PAL - Possession and Acquisition License, or basically, gun license. You need it to own and buy guns. If you have a gun that was grandfathered and you don't have a PAL, you need to get a Possession-Only License, which is the same thing but doesn't allow you to buy new guns. To get a PAL, you have to take a 2-day safety course (usually ~$150-200), pass an exam (you can do it with the instructor), and send in your paperwork + application fee to the RCMP. It takes several weeks to months to get it, they do a thorough background check + phone several references and also try to make sure you're not a crazy ex or don't have a crazy ex. They phone your partner if you have one. You do need a reason to apply for a PAL, but something like "I want to get into target shooting" or "I want to start hunting" is perfectly acceptable. I don't think "I want to plink at cans" would fly, however.

There are three firearms classes: restricted, non-restricted and prohibited. Non-restricted is basically any rifle or shotgun as long as it's not and was never automatic in its original design. So something like a .50 cal Barrett would be non-restricted (provided it's not M82, which is prohibited by name, but M82 knock-offs are fine too). An AR-10 semi-automatic knock off would be restricted. Restricted guns are all handguns with barrels over 4", modern military-grade rifles (i.e. AR-10 variants) in semi-automatic. Prohibited guns are some specifically named models (i.e. all AK-47/74 variants or knock-offs), handguns with barrels under 4," all automatics, all bullpup rifles, and all magazines above a certain capacity. Almost all modern military weapons are prohibited by name, but you can get semi-automatic Chinese/Czech knock-offs classified as restricted. AK is a special case as the action itself, not the gun, is banned - you can get an AK look-alike, but it won't use the same mechanism.

Non-restricted weapons are easy to acquire, don't have to be registered, and can be treated the same way in the US, provided you have a PAL. You can stick them in a truck, have a few lying around the house, don't need locks, etc. Only restriction is the gun or magazine cannot be touching ammo until you're actually shooting. You can also shoot non-restricted guns in the bush provided it's either crown (government) land, or you have the owner's permission. They are the only weapon type you can use for hunting.

Restricted weapons are a massive hassle. To get one, you need an ATT (authorization to transport). Which is only given out if you're a member in good standing in a gun club + have access to a range. Then you get an authorization to take the gun home, and then to and from the range... Here, the laws get extremely draconian. You are *only* allowed to take the gun out to the range. When you apply for an ATT, you must specify specific days on which you will go to the range, you can't just say "I want to be able to go on the weekends." It's more like "I will go to the range on 10, 11 and 12th of every month." You are *not* allowed to make any detours when you go to and from the range. From what I hear, cops won't care if you stop by Safeway for some snacks, but you'll most likely lose the license if they catch you taking the gun to work so you can hit the range afterward.

Also, you need a safe + trigger lock for restricted guns, but this provision is at least logical.

Prohibited guns are prohibited. The only exception is if they were grandfathered in (i.e. grandfather brought over a Walther PPK he took off a German in World War II). Collection reasons are allowed, but guns are only qualified as collectible if they were made before 1896, or something like that (I didn't look into it).

Neat.

We do, but carrying any sort of weapon explicitly intended for self defence (pistols, chemical sprays, certain types of knives, collapsible batons, etc) is generally banned.

One thing I will mention is that violent crime is reported differently over here, so looking at straight numbers won't give you a like for like comparison match.

Aye. The entire culture of weaponry and force is different.

Firearm homicides are literally* a one-in-a-million occurrence here.
Compared to the 36-per-million over the pond, that's pretty insignificant.

Other gun-crime statistics are similarly tiny - the very strict gun laws mean that the criminals don't have guns either. Of course we have twice the knife crime instead, but knives are quite a bit less dangerous; we have a fifth of your homicide rate overall.

*Yes, really - average of 62 gun murders/year and 62 million population over 15 years.

Wait, that math is wrong. 62 annually, and 62 mil over fifteen is actually 62 / (62,000,000 / 15 =) 4,133,333 1/3 = one in 66,666.6613 or so, so about a one in seventy thousand shot.

Every use of force continuum in the world lists "knife" as a deadly weapon, rightfully. You do not escalate, you respond to the level of force.

So you must kill your mother when she cuts her steak. She has a knife after all.

No, a knife alone is not intent. Even words are not intent. A threat with a knife at a distance is just that, a threat. It's not a fight until you get up close, or let the otehr guy get up close - then it's a fight to the death that you did nothing to avoid provoking.

What I am arguing against is rationalizing morality. The idea that a clear equation, X action is bad or good, changes because you are in it. That's terrible. It is further terrible to decide ahead of time that a bad thing is not really bad because you want to be able to do it and not feel bad. That's crap. That's not morality, that's justification. Don't redefine morality so that you don't feel bad, accept that you did an immoral thing and own it. You should feel bad. You should rend your garments, pull your hair, question your humanity. That's a sign that you are not okay with killing with aplomb. We don't want lethal force to ever be easy. Not for the body, not for the soul.

The universal law enforcement response

Has nothing to do with a moral stance.

Further, no law does. Laws must often be amoral to work; it is not moral to decide which side of the road to drive on, which days are to be taken off for holiday, etc., but it is a legal necessity. Further further; the police (in america at least) do not actually ahve to care about any persona s an institution. They do not protect people, they protect society. They do this by punishing crime (not morality) after the damage is done. They do not defend, they avenge. As an institution, law enforcement is not moral. It is not a valid place to look for any one person's decisions on how toe behave because no one person is law enforcement. No one person can appeal to the authority, anonymity and inertia of it's body to avoid direct responsibility.

You can see a homeless man draw a knife and draw a gun yourself, that's fine. I've basically done that. But don't kid yourself into thinking it is not risking your life to justify the use of force. It is clearly valuing use of force over personal sanctity of life.


Unless you think you will get into a lethal force conflict and not need to fear for your own life, of course.

I'll say it again. A knife is a deadly weapon. "Hoping" that a criminal won't "escalate" (lol) further is a really risky proposition.

No, I'm saying you should not escalate. They set the bar. It's your choice to meet it and say "yeah, let's slug this out, my schwartz is as large as yours!" or to say "nope, sorry, this is not worth the risk, bye".

People who buy into this idea, that it's okay to respond with force if you didn't start it, do this all the time. And it's a threat display; a warning. I've had a pistol on me because I got too close to a guy's truck while picking up trash, and was irritated he yelled at me. Was he going to shoot me? Not unless I gave him the excuse. I've had a violent drunk shouting racial slurs raise his fist to me because I didn't stop the bus I didn't know he wanted. Was he going to hit me? Not unless I gave him the excuse*. I've had a kid pull a knife on me and ask me to repeat what I just said, in a menacing voice. Was he going to stab me? Not unless I gave him the excuse. I've had a man shout and then lunge at me with a machete because he thought... I don't even know. Pretty sure he was on crystal. He was going to do something, clearly. And I responded by shutting him down.

The first examples all have the same standard operation Red Flag that americans are starting to pretend does not exist; They made a display of willingness to go there, and put the ball in my court. They didn't attack. They didn't provoke. They made it clear they would keep escalating unless they "won", but that choice is at that point, yours. You choose whether you antagonize the angry dog or you back slowly away. You can certainly skip the antagonization and just shoot the guy. It's not about whether you can or should do something; it's about rationalizing away the emotional consequence.

Another possibly interesting statistic -- a professor here has collected statistics that suggest about 1 in 8 potential confrontational crimes in the United States are prevented by the possible victim showing, or occasionally using, a firearm. Of course, that doesn't count crimes where there is no confrontation, such as the aforementioned burglars who break in when nobody is home.

Of course. Escalation is all about seeing who will go farther; it's playing chicken. It's just a game of chicken where sometimes one or both parties, especially when neither is well-versed in physicality, do not know and cannot know the consequences until it's too late. So often these things are "he punched me so I pushed him down the stairs, I just didn't want him pushing me anymore". This makes it so sometimes (often, to hear law enforcement tell it, but that's a skewed perspective without data) people will accidentally go farther than they are comfortable going. But it is certain that you can win this game of chicken, at least some of the time.

I am arguing against the idea of "I shouldn't be held accountable for playing chicken, because the other guy started it".






* in all fairness, the drunk would likely have tried to hit me if I had defaulted to shrinking and staying in the seat. He would have given chase if I had fled, though ultimately let em escape. Both are the sort of dominance behaviours this person reinforced their life with.

[Crimson Wolf]

I'm sorry but are you daft? If some stranger you don't know comes up to you and pulls out a knife, either walking towards you or already at you how is that not violent intent? This is different than someone cutting steak (which was such a foolish argument to begin with) this is someone who you don't know, walking up and pulling a weapon out. If they do this PLUS demanding money this isn't some "monkey dance" as you put it (which by the way sounds horribly racist), this is a thug trying to hold you up for your possessions. Just by taking a step or so back and pulling out a pistol, is a way to not only defend yourself should he try to come at you more, but either make him run the hell away or demand he put the weapon down, then you call the cops.

Defending yourself or at the very least responding to a violent situation isn't some size measuring contest as you keep thinking, it is as I said, defending yourself. How about this, why don't you try your approach? Walk in the highest rated gang activity area wherever you live at, once someone tried to mug you piss urself and scream like you suggested and lets see the outcome, while I try my approach of if someone tries to hold me up I instantly show him I have the option of lethal force and see how fast HE runs away.

Edit: Most stick ups aren't at distance. They walk up to you just casually, maybe even friendly and get you talking or not, then pull out a weapon. Don't fool urself thinking holdups are something that is from a distance.

[Crow]

Putting aside your reductio ad absurdum joke at the beginning of your post Siuis...

20 ft. If an assailant has a knife drawn, that is the distance he can cover (and stab you) before you can draw and fire an accurate shot.

I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, you don't draw a knife and threaten someone unless you intend to follow through on that threat.

[SiuiS]

(which by the way sounds horribly racist)

Primates do this to determine primacy. THinking it's racist (rather than speciest) says more about your view of the discussion than about me.

Edit: Most stick ups aren't at distance. They walk up to you just casually, maybe even friendly and get you talking or not, then pull out a weapon. Don't fool urself thinking holdups are something that is from a distance.

I've been in a few. A few points.

A) pulls a knife != a stickup. Reacting to all crimes from threats to actual attack identically is stupid.
B) pulling a gun from within 15 feet is a bad idea. It's something police are told not to do, it's something personal bodyguards are warned against, it's something that gets prison guards killed, it's something gangsters actively train to handle. If I have a knife, and you go for a weapon instead of complying, I'm trained to rush you and simultaneously control your weapon arm and inflict grievous injury from an oblique angle.
C) This sounds to me like Too Many Ninjas. There are potential situations where you will be killed for no raisin with utmost skill, so you will respond to all situations as if they were this situation.
D) I am not saying don't defend yourself; I am saying don't bull**** yourself. Don't pretend you are not morally culpable for the decision.
E) Yes, yes I am daft.



D) is the important one. I am all for self-defense. I am just against rationalizing things you would do under pressure as no longer immoral to avoid cognitive dissonance. If it's immoral when Joe Dirt does it, it's immoral when you do it. That's why it is such a big deal. This is a responsibility. You do not get to defer that responsibility to some nebulous 'you would have done it to'. Just like I don't get to defer responsibility when I do it.


E:

I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, you don't draw a knife and threaten someone unless you intend to follow through on that threat.

responsible people who understand force do not draw unless they mean it.

Manchildren who don't understand non-subjective morality and think that hookers and blow are the end-all be-all of a well-lived life do. The entire bottom floor of gang culture is an echo chamber of hyperbole and exaggeration. Popular media and school clique culture reinforce the idea that using shows of force is okay if the other person starts it. These people truly do not understand that having a knife in your hand is a lethal threat.

Someone rushing you? That's an action. Someone basically puffing up like a cat and telling you to back off? Well, honestly, what do you have to lose for backing off? What but pride?

[Crimson Wolf]

No I am not saying you would do it too, in fact by all your reactions id say you wouldn't do it and either be A, a victim, or B be a victim. Where as I would pull a gun out if anyone threatened me with any weapon. As per my view of the discussion it is hard to tell if you are serious or not with saying things like pissing urself to avoid being assaulted, shooting someones mother at the dinner table, and thinking gang members are "trained" against people with guns. My thing is even without a gun, I always carried a weapon for a long long time because I told myself I would never be a victim again after something that happened, and I have had too many friends suffer almost the exact same crime. Now almost all of us pack something (legally) in case something similar or otherwise ever occurred again.

Also response time for pulling a weapon out and firing, a few of the local guys at the gun shop/range I frequent showed me some mock draws. These guys could pull, aim, fire and hit with good accuracy in the blink of an eye. So saying some random thug would get the drop on someone through "training" is a bit silly. Now everyone is different and I am no way as good as them, but id trust my response time, hell I could at least either back up some or take a small sprint and draw a weapon. Heck you can say "okay okay don't hurt me, here let me get my wallet" then reach in your pocket, where your concealed carry is, and draw it instead.

[SiuiS]

No I am not saying you would do it too, in fact by all your reactions id say you wouldn't do it and either be A, a victim, or B be a victim.

Also response time for pulling a weapon out and firing, a few of the local guys at the gun shop/range I frequent showed me some mock draws. These guys could pull, aim, fire and hit with good accuracy in the blink of an eye. So saying some random thug would get the drop on someone through "training" is a bit silly. Now everyone is different and I am no way as good as them, but id trust my response time, hell I could at least either back up some or take a small sprint and draw a weapon. Heck you can say "okay okay don't hurt me, here let me get my wallet" then reach in your pocket, where your concealed carry is, and draw it instead.

That's your issue. To you, some random thug is just an averaging of what you expect thug traits to be. You honestly believe that what are, for general discussion purposes, guys at a gun shop talking shop, will train for muscle memory, coordination, and speed, but "a random thug" wont, even though I told you I and some friends have done so. I appreciate you just don't think of me as a thug, though~

Alrighty. I think this ship has gone 'round as much as it can. I don't think you understand the point I'm making or the language I'm using to make it. I'll wait for Crow's round-up and we'll call it early for tea.

[Brother Oni]

Every use of force continuum in the world lists "knife" as a deadly weapon, rightfully. You do not escalate, you respond to the level of force.

The universal law enforcement response to a deadly weapon is lethal force. Not neccessarily to kill him, but to stop the threat, whatever that takes in the specific situation. I'm not sure about other countries or states, but where I live, the deadly force laws apply the same to police as they do to citizens.

You know how our gun ownership laws are a bit vague about a 'good reason'? Our self defence laws are equally vague as defending yourself with reasonable force is permitted and only grossly disproportionate force will land you in trouble with the law: link.

As before, this is very political and provided for information only.

Someone basically puffing up like a cat and telling you to back off? Well, honestly, what do you have to lose for backing off? What but pride?

I agree with you and if it were just me, I'd try to walk away. If someone tried that when I'm with my wife and/or children, I wouldn't be so lenient.

I've been attacked while walking down the street simply for being an ethnic minority and in my experience, not responding to their insults can cause them to escalate as they want to get a reaction out of you.
In this case, some chest beating or other equivalent display of bigger primate can be useful in causing them to back off, as they're often not looking for a fight, merely to cause mischief.

[Crow]

Response to Siuis B.

Don't worry, people train to handle that particular (quite expected) tactic, quite extensively. I might get cut or possibly stabbed, but you'll get shot. Most of the time you're not going to see the guy going for the weapon first though, unless he doesn't know any better.

Slightly unrelated, here is a link to a fun video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSo8A6hiw_8&feature=youtu.be&a

[SiuiS]

I agree with you and if it were just me, I'd try to walk away. If someone tried that when I'm with my wife and/or children, I wouldn't be so lenient.

Oh, indeed. Like I keep saying, what I consider moral and what I would do do not need to align.

Slightly unrelated, here is a link to a fun video.

Nooope. I'm mostly over my violence related anxiety stuff. Not gonna let that get farther than the loading screen. I want to be able to avoid flashbacks and cold sweats. XD

[Crow]

No worries. It was pretty relevant to some of the gun vs knife stuff, but I understand.

[J-H]

Guns make for a very effective deterrent, and they help fix balance-of-power problems between individuals and small groups, or between weak individuals (women, old men) and larger/stronger people.
If some of the fathers of Rottenham had had guns, I suspect there'd have a few hundred un-raped young women now.

Since the "UK vs US" thing is still going, here are a few #s.

US 2012 violent crime rate: 1,214,462. 386.9 per 100,000.
Property crime rate: 8,975,438. 2,859.2 per 100,000
Total: 3,246.1
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime
The FBI only reports the highest level of crime involved (murder + rape + theft gets reported as murder) so the only duplication in these stats are for arson cases.

UKcrimestats doesn't present its data in such a useful manner. There are a bunch of "other crimes" which seem to involve rape, murder, etc. I'll do the best I can at a comparison.
Population of England 53,012,456 + population of Wales 3,063,456 = 56,075,912

Total crimes minus ASB for May & June 2014:
602,050
602,050 x 6 for yearly rate = 3,612,300
3,612,300/56,075,912 = .064418
.064418 x 100,000 = 6,441.8
http://ukcrimestats.com/

The total UK crime rate, excluding the nebulous "Anti-Social Behavior" category, is roughly double that of America's.

Although, yes, there are fewer murders, there is also much less deterrent and risk associated with most forms of crime.

Murder rates in America track disproportionately to certain geographic areas and demographics.

[Brother Oni]

UKcrimestats doesn't present its data in such a useful manner. There are a bunch of "other crimes" which seem to involve rape, murder, etc. I'll do the best I can at a comparison.

Rape and murder are counted as Violent Crime here: here's the actual numbers if you're interested.

The total UK crime rate, excluding the nebulous "Anti-Social Behavior" category, is roughly double that of America's.

Although, yes, there are fewer murders, there is also much less deterrent and risk associated with most forms of crime.

Murder rates in America track disproportionately to certain geographic areas and demographics.

You're comparing only Violent Crime in the US to ALL crime (minus ASBs) in England and Wales? Do you not see the unfair comparison here?

Even comparing Violent Crime to Violent Crime isn't a good measure as burglary is reported as a violent crime here whereas it's a Property Crime over there.

Even in categories that you'd expect to be the same, there's differences: until 2012, the FBI only counted 'forcible rape'” in its violent crime statistics, which is defined as 'the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will'. This has led to issues like the Chicago PD not being able to include 1,400 sexual assaults in the FBI's stats as the city's definition of rape was broader than the FBI's.
Over here, rape is defined as 'intentional penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of the complainant with his penis, the complainant does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe consent has been given'.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the differences.

[Bulldog Psion]

Aaaaanyway, to return somewhat to the original topic ...

Has anyone here ever shot a Henry lever action rifle? I've got a dream of owning one, though I'm not sure if that dream will be realized. I'd be interested to know how it measures up to stuff like the Winchesters I'm familiar with.

It's definitely got an interesting history, and it looks good. Since it's $2,300, though, I'm curious as to whether it's really a dream worth dreaming.

[JustPlayItLoud]

Aaaaanyway, to return somewhat to the original topic ...

Has anyone here ever shot a Henry lever action rifle? I've got a dream of owning one, though I'm not sure if that dream will be realized. I'd be interested to know how it measures up to stuff like the Winchesters I'm familiar with.

It's definitely got an interesting history, and it looks good. Since it's $2,300, though, I'm curious as to whether it's really a dream worth dreaming.

I've shot a Henry brand rifle. It was a .357 Big Boy. Lever guns are probably the lost insanely fun firearms, but the modern Henry is nothing like the original. The loading mechanism is significantly different. It's still loaded from the muzzle end of the magazine, but it uses a removable plug rather than the old fashioned tab style. Upside is that it allows for hand guard front of the receiver. Downside is it takes a little longer to load and doesn't look as cool.

It mostly depends on how much authenticity you want. If you just want a fun range toy a Henry Big Boy is tons of fun. If you want something a little less expensive can pick up a Rossi 1892 clone in .357, .44mag, .44-40, .45 Colt, or even .454 Casull. They're usually put together terribly from the factory, but the price of a custom action job will still probably bring you under the cost of a modern Henry and it will run butter smooth. Mine is amazing.

A used Marlin is also an option though most of what they make is going to be in .30-30 Win(boring) or .45-70 Gov't (most fun caliber ever!)

[FLHerne]

[ridiculously incomparable statistics]
The total UK crime rate, excluding the nebulous "Anti-Social Behavior" category, is roughly double that of America's.

Yes, you really did just compare all UK crimes (inc. driving offenses, fraud, etc), to 'violent and property crime' in the US.

Even the (totally unofficial) page you link to for UK stats has, right on the front page, a chart that illustrates that - the sum total of burglary, robbery and violent crime (very roughly what you seem to have counted for the US) is about a third of non-ASBO recorded crime, so about 2/3 of the US rate if your other calculations are accurate.
That's with 'violent crime ' defined much more broadly, too.

Actually comparable stats (from the US gov, no less).
Once again, UK crime stats are slightly lower except for burglary.

Re. burglary, there's clearly a big difference between the US and UK there - in the UK, a very large proportion of burglary is carried out as an almost casual way to scrounge money for drugs/alcohol/whatever. The typical scenario when coming across a burglar in your house (done that once) is that he runs off and then you call the police to get fingerprints. If you stop him, great; if you shoot him (unless he's carrying a weapon, o/c) you go to jail.
The assumption that armed burglars will 'invade' your home and attack you if disturbed seems to be a US thing - perhaps because the stakes are so much higher to start with, the casual sort we have here are put off?

[Crow]

I have no problem just assuming that US crime rates are probably way higher than the UK's. It has nothing to do with guns, but with our "culture".

[Gwynfrid]

Alrighty. I think this ship has gone 'round as much as it can. I don't think you understand the point I'm making or the language I'm using to make it. I'll wait for Crow's round-up and we'll call it early for tea.

You make a pretty solid case, you know. Sometimes you do that just a little too emphatically for the good of the argument, that's why it doesn't always work (that, and the fact that convincing somebody to change their mind on the Internet is about as easy as killing an ancient red dragon with a non-magical tablespoon). Nevertheless, I have to say, I'm impressed with the amount of thought you've put in this, as well as your honesty.

[J-H]

You're comparing only Violent Crime in the US to ALL crime (minus ASBs) in England and Wales? Do you not see the unfair comparison here?

Nope, I did violent + property to try to get a fair comparison.

Yes, you really did just compare all UK crimes (inc. driving offenses, fraud, etc), to 'violent and property crime' in the US.

Even the (totally unofficial) page you link to for UK stats has, right on the front page, a chart that illustrates that - the sum total of burglary, robbery and violent crime (very roughly what you seem to have counted for the US) is about a third of non-ASBO recorded crime, so about 2/3 of the US rate if your other calculations are accurate.
That's with 'violent crime ' defined much more broadly, too.

Actually comparable stats (from the US gov, no less).
Once again, UK crime stats are slightly lower except for burglary.

I don't see driving offenses or fraud listed on the website I linked to. Unless "vehicle crime" means "speeding" rather than "auto theft." Considering that "Bike theft" has its own category, I believe vehicle crime is still referring to theft. I should have omitted the Drugs and Public Order numbers, though.

The BJS link dates to 2004, and doesn't contain any data for the last 15 years (ends at 1999).

As pointed out, this is veering off topic. We should probably continue this via PMs if you're interested.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I have no problem just assuming that US crime rates are probably way higher than the UK's. It has nothing to do with guns, but with our "culture".

The US also has a much larger number of disenfranchised minorities that directly or indirectly contribute to crime, and in some cases almost seem to view it as OK culturally. You know a there's a problem when becoming a drug dealer is considered a legitimate career choice.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So when you say .22 is rare nowadays, do you mean like small game rifle .22 rounds, or AR-15 5.56x45mm NATO (I don't know if the AR-15 is modified for civilian hunting rounds or if it's just semi-auto only)?

[J-H]

So when you say .22 is rare nowadays, do you mean like small game rifle .22 rounds, or AR-15 5.56x45mm NATO (I don't know if the AR-15 is modified for civilian hunting rounds or if it's just semi-auto only)?

.22LR, the rimfire cartridge that used to be $10 for 550 at Wal-Mart.

5.56 aka .223 is still available at close to reasonable prices. I buy IMI by the case; I'd have to check but I think it's 55gr M156. I have a .22LR adapter for my AR, and that's what I use for practice. Even at $0.04 per shot, it's still a lot cheaper to shoot .22.

[Dragonus45]

So you must kill your mother when she cuts her steak. She has a knife after all.

No, a knife alone is not intent. Even words are not intent. A threat with a knife at a distance is just that, a threat. It's not a fight until you get up close, or let the otehr guy get up close - then it's a fight to the death that you did nothing to avoid provoking.

Don't know if this was brought up but everything I have learned about self defense says you should fear a person brandishing a knife as much if not more than someone if a gun because a knife is a very personal weapon. A person who shows they might be willing to attack with a knife is likely to be more committed to the act. I don't know how accurate that is though.

[SiuiS]

You make a pretty solid case, you know. Sometimes you do that just a little too emphatically for the good of the argument, that's why it doesn't always work (that, and the fact that convincing somebody to change their mind on the Internet is about as easy as killing an ancient red dragon with a non-magical tablespoon). Nevertheless, I have to say, I'm impressed with the amount of thought you've put in this, as well as your honesty.

Thank you. Really, I'm not worried about convincing someone, I'm interested in making the viewpoint understood. I'm okay with people disagreeing once they understand! It's hard to get confirmation that people get the point though.

And yes. I was being quite emphatic. I don't think issues of life or death should be handled with clinical distance when addressing responsibility.

The US also has a much larger number of disenfranchised minorities that directly or indirectly contribute to crime, and in some cases almost seem to view it as OK culturally. You know a there's a problem when becoming a drug dealer is considered a legitimate career choice.

Hmm. I am surprised at this, and my response. My immediate reaction is to say both, that you aren't giving these people a fair shake, and that I feel you are being overly negative and looking down on these people.

Don't know if this was brought up but everything I have learned about self defense says you should fear a person brandishing a knife as much if not more than someone if a gun because a knife is a very personal weapon. A person who shows they might be willing to attack with a knife is likely to be more committed to the act. I don't know how accurate that is though.

Maybe. I don't think discussing it is worthwhile once it becomes about who's Kung Fu is strongest though. We will all admit that every military and paramilitary group ever uses the "have fun in hand before knife guy gets within eight meters" rule. Arguing who has the most kungfu skill between bum rush kido and QuickDraw no jutsu is pointless. We can't really addres specific values of variables, just the quality of those variables.

Heck, me and crow even agree; being obvious about drawing your gun within threat range is a bad move and shouldn't happen.

Oh! Unless a ghurka is involved. Small man with big knife and smile? Surrender your gun. It's for the best that way. XD

[Crow]

Oh! Unless a ghurka is involved. Small man with big knife and smile? Surrender your gun. It's for the best that way. XD

Give the poor guy your ammo so he can get back to winning the battle!

[Brother Oni]

Give the poor guy your ammo so he can get back to winning the battle!

Sometimes they don't even need that!

[blacklight101]

check out badassoftheweek.com it has great stories like that, a handful of which are about Ghurkas.

[Dragonus45]

Maybe. I don't think discussing it is worthwhile once it becomes about who's Kung Fu is strongest though. We will all admit that every military and paramilitary group ever uses the "have fun in hand before knife guy gets within eight meters" rule. Arguing who has the most kungfu skill between bum rush kido and QuickDraw no jutsu is pointless. We can't really addres specific values of variables, just the quality of those variables.

Heck, me and crow even agree; being obvious about drawing your gun within threat range is a bad move and shouldn't happen.

Oh! Unless a ghurka is involved. Small man with big knife and smile? Surrender your gun. It's for the best that way. XD

What did anything I say have anything to do with who's kung fu was anything or quick draws or whatever. All I said was that I had been told that a person who chooses to mugs you with a knife is more likely to be accepting or committed to the idea of acting with violence.

[SiuiS]

I took that in reference to the prior discussion about operational distance.

Really, some people will be more committed, but some will just use the only tool at hand. I can't generalize from that without qualifiers.