[QUOTE=bluemonkey]My point: guns are used more in crime than in preventing crime.[/QUOTE]
And they are used a lot in preventing crime -- at least in the US. I've had at least two experiences like this in my lifetime, and in both cases the criminal assailant himself didn't have a gun.
[QUOTE=bluemonkey]For every person who avoided a sexual assault by having a gun you will find several who had one used against them to cause that act.[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly the point I thought you'd make (as it is the only one left). You are willing to put the woman in jail for using a gun to avoid a sexual assault because you believe that merely owning a gun makes her a criminal. Or, at least, you believe it is ok to treat owning a gun as a crime even when it is used for good purposes because you believe it makes an overall safer society -- which effectively amounts to sacrificing the woman involved to your own artificial standard instead of allowing each of us to prevent those crimes.
I said it before, and I'll say it again, each time a State attempts to bring some new social plan into the foray, the last concern is which citizens/subjects/human beings they have to sacrifice. Hey, we can have prosperity -- who cares if we have to break a few eggs along the way?
The answer to this would certainly be more involved, but it would also be the only right answer -- when someone commits an act of aggressive violence against another person or his property in an unprovoked manner, you prosecute that person for it -- without prejudice to what weapon he used to commit that crime. You judge him based on his intent.
Of course, that's not acceptible to statists, because it puts too much burden of proof on the State to prove its case. The answer? Make his instruments illegal, knowing full well that many who own such instruments would never do the same thing. And by so doing, make those who own such instruments criminals without the crime. It solves the problem of a State having to prove a big crime by making it easier to prove the new artificial crime.
That is what's happening here -- shortcuts. And shortcuts in the legal system always violate basic human rights -- ALWAYS.
[QUOTE=bluemonkey]It's no different to the nuclear arms race, sure you can defend yourself with a gun but that means you can have one used against you.[/QUOTE]
If Iran is making nuclear weapons, do you think we should go to war with Iran?
I am curious about this because by your reasoning, in calling these situations similar, it is ok to go to war against the individual who merely owns a gun and has harmed no one. Would that not be an accurate representation of your opinion on this matter?
[QUOTE=bluemonkey]At the end of the day a criminal is more likely to have a gun than a normal person as a result it is more common to have an innocent the victim of a gun crime than it is to have one used to protect them.[/QUOTE]
And so your solution is to make the innocent person who owns a gun a victim of violence from an institution in a way you support? Is that your trade off?
Yes, the average guy is DEFINITELY less likely to own a gun when the State turns it into a crime to do so. As for the criminals, it's not so much less likely. Which criminal doesn't fully appreciate a disarmed victim?
[QUOTE=bluemonkey]Don't get me wrong I am not a fan of our legal system and believe that it has many failings but you can't get much worse than the American system. There are few places with a worse "justice" system than that one where guilt is determined by how rich you are. Your whole police system is a joke with even things such as fingerprint analysis being done in a none standard manner from technician to technician.[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right. But what does that have to do with gun crime, making guns illegal, etc.? If I use a gun to defend myself in your society, I am likey to go to jail. True or untrue? That would make me the victim. It would make your Government the aggressor. There simply IS no spinning that. Governments simply must treat people as individuals. And they simply must learn to identify crime for what it actually is, instead of purposefully misidentifying it for the sake of making it easier to prove their cases and fill their prisons. And this restriction I am referring to both the United States and the United Kingdom -- neither one of them have an excuse for this.
[QUOTE=bluemonkey]In the UK we don't have school shootings, we don't have mass murderers. The odd one here and there but nothing like over there.[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Among mass murderers, the incidence of gun crime is extremely low by comparison to the average criminal who is pushing the drug trade. Over 80% of gun crime in the States is built around the drug war, with most of those guns being imported in the same way that drugs are. Ultimately, many individuals who are victims of "mass murderers" and serial killers would benefit from owning a gun. And in a situation where they are denied that benefit, their lives are ruined by a legal system in trade for defense from that serial killer.
[QUOTE=bluemonkey]I feel safer knowing that if I walk down the street the worst a guy can pull on me is a knife. If he has a knife I can at least defend myself. If he has a gun you can't even make a move on him. That puts the power in the hands of the criminal because the criminal is more likely to pull a gun without provocation.[/QUOTE]
Can you easily defend yourself against a thug who is bigger than you who has a knife? Obviously you can't defend yourself against a criminal with a gun when you don't have one.
I feel very very safe on American streets, but I'd accept the possibility of violence first before I'd ever accept that much safety at the expense of the Government that is supposed to represent me becoming the aggressor. In cases like that, Government is simply able to wipe away their own crimes by calling them justified with the signature of a congress or parliament. Again, institutionalized violence, even for seemingly good purposes, is still institutionalized violence. No amount of apologist defense changes that.