• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Right Of Self Defense In England

Sure, but the safety features and education also became better.

But the comparison is between countries/states with more gun laws and less guns compared to states/countries with more guns and less gun laws.

States with a higher number of guns have more accidental deaths, it is wonderful that this is going down and I think the good and responsible gun owners for that achievement but statistically you are more likely to have an accident with a gun if guns are available to you then you no guns are available to you.

Well that's true.. but of course its also invalid. If we were to use that rationale.. then reasonably we need to stop allowing bicycle purchases.. because the more people that own a bicycle.. the great the number of bicycle accidents...

You can't have a bicycle accident if you aren;t around bicycles.

the more valid statistic is the rate of injury per use of firearms.. and that statistic shows that the rate of injury has gone down. So we have fewer accidents per 100,000 even thought the number of firearms has increased.
 
Well that's true.. but of course its also invalid. If we were to use that rationale.. then reasonably we need to stop allowing bicycle purchases.. because the more people that own a bicycle.. the great the number of bicycle accidents...

You can't have a bicycle accident if you aren;t around bicycles.

the more valid statistic is the rate of injury per use of firearms.. and that statistic shows that the rate of injury has gone down. So we have fewer accidents per 100,000 even thought the number of firearms has increased.

What nonsense, bicycles are transport, their use is moving from spot a to spot b, they have no other purpose. To compare it to a gun is :bs, people do not stumble upon a bicycle and accidentally kill themselves or someone else by accident. A bicycle, especially a big normal one their parents use to cycle is not going to accidentally discharge when a child finds it.

And it is not comparing historically that is relevant because if gun safety improves every where, you can only compare it if you compare it to states with less guns compared to your own and then compare the historical firearms injury rate.
 
What nonsense, bicycles are transport, their use is moving from spot a to spot b, they have no other purpose. To compare it to a gun is :bs, people do not stumble upon a bicycle and accidentally kill themselves or someone else by accident. A bicycle, especially a big normal one their parents use to cycle is not going to accidentally discharge when a child finds it.

The purpose of an item is irrelavant. You weren't arguing the purpose of firearms. You were arguing that guns are dangerous.
And it is not comparing historically that is relevant because if gun safety improves every where, you can only compare it if you compare it to states with less guns compared to your own and then compare the historical firearms injury rate.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
 
"As mentioned previously, the English have a remarkably low murder rate generally (about 800 a year in a population of 60 million) and always have done. The paucity of English murder is not the result of a careful control of weapons through the ages, especially guns, for as mentioned above for much of our history weapons were available. The only rational explanation for it is that there is something in the English character and society, that has made extreme personal violence rare. If any people can be trusted to own weapons the English can."

This is well stated: "The individual should have any weapon that the state is willing to use against the individual."


it's "English character" how does that translate to equally low or lower murder rates in places like Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, Norway and Canada?

I venture to suggest you have it backward. It isn't "something in the English character", but rather something in the American culture as it is the US who has the highest murder rate, highest crime rates etc.

England, Sweden, Canada etc., are the human norm.


https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/the-right-of-self-defence-in-england-2/



If it's "English character" how does that translate to equally low or lower murder rates in places like Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, Norway and Canada?

I venture to suggest you have it backward. It isn't "something in the English character", but rather something in the American culture as it is the US who has the highest murder rate, highest crime rates etc.

I suggest it is England, Sweden, Canada etc., that are the norm.
 
If it's "English character" how does that translate to equally low or lower murder rates in places like Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, Norway and Canada?

I venture to suggest you have it backward. It isn't "something in the English character", but rather something in the American culture as it is the US who has the highest murder rate, highest crime rates etc.

I suggest it is England, Sweden, Canada etc., that are the norm.

You should address all of these points to the author of the linked publication.
 
Except that creating a fake domino theory gave you an excuse to invade.

And according to one scholar america lost its war with cananda.
Canada won the War of 1812, U.S. historian admits | National Post
Saviors of the world and you cannot even win a war against countries like vietnam or canada. What a joke.


I had the benefit of learning about the war of 1812 in both Canada and the US. No, the US did not achieve its objectives on Lake Erie and the St Lawrence River, and despite the cry "I have met the enemy he is ours" most of the ships at the bottom of lake Erie carried the stars and stripes.

If you study the war through European eyes, what happened in North America is of little consequence, except it started some Americans to dream of "54:40" as a northern boundary.

In truth, Canada and the US have never officially been to war except shoulder to shoulder, however there has been a "war" as late as 1859....the "Great Pig War"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)

The only other time the US seriously considered invading Canada was during the years of the "Underground Railway"
 
If it's "English character" how does that translate to equally low or lower murder rates in places like Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, Norway and Canada?

I venture to suggest you have it backward. It isn't "something in the English character", but rather something in the American culture as it is the US who has the highest murder rate, highest crime rates etc.

I suggest it is England, Sweden, Canada etc., that are the norm.

I think that before discussing the US murder rate and compares it with that in other countries, we might want to look at how the US statistics break down. Then it becomes more interesting to think about cause and culture.
 
What nonsense, bicycles are transport, their use is moving from spot a to spot b, they have no other purpose. To compare it to a gun is :bs, people do not stumble upon a bicycle and accidentally kill themselves or someone else by accident. A bicycle, especially a big normal one their parents use to cycle is not going to accidentally discharge when a child finds it.

And it is not comparing historically that is relevant because if gun safety improves every where, you can only compare it if you compare it to states with less guns compared to your own and then compare the historical firearms injury rate.
o

People do have accidents while using bicycles.. just like people very rarely have accidents while using firearms.

Neither a bicycle nor a firearm suddenly jumps up and forces a person to use them.

And it is not comparing historically that is relevant because if gun safety improves every where, you can only compare it if you compare it to states with less guns compared to your own and then compare the historical firearms injury rate.

Actually no because another state with more or less guns introduces other intervening variables. Like cultures, education so on and so forth.

Comparison within a state gives more relevant data.
 
Back
Top Bottom