Hi Jenni, I have to disagree with pretty much all of your last posting. Your easy dismissal of the harm of negligence medical deaths appears absolute and I suspect that even if the numbers were one million, (which it is according to some reports) you would not be able to see that the when compared to the number of deaths from all firearms, comprises a much greater threat to the innocent. Numbers do matter and a person killed by medical misadventure is no less dead than one one killed a firearm, in any situation you care to mention.
As far as risk is concerned, everything is a risk and living in a society that has embraced firearms as throughly as America has, means that that risk is ever present. Having said that, the fact that medical negligence represents
a leading cause of preventable death in America and people must seek treatment or go without is another risk. The fact that such negligence is often under reported and that hospitals conspire to hid the facts of such deaths, only enables the carnage to continue. The medical establishment has routinely opposed public databases that would allow patients (or their guardians) to check to see if the doctor or hospital/clinic has a suspect record that warrants further investigation and this only increases the risk to the innocent. This has allowed bad practitioners and institutions to avoid detection and avoid being permanently prevented from practicing. In many cases all a bad doctor has to do is move to another state and set up shop again and additional negligent deaths occur. If this isn't homicide, what is?
"I think it might be safe to assume that some people killed by guns are in fact innocent - or are all those people responsible for their own deaths in some way?"
No, innocents are in fact killed by guns, cars, tree falling and lighting strikes. Eating soup from a can also carries a risk as does English cooking, however when you consider that about 58% of firearm deaths here are suicides, then yes, many are "responsible" for their own death. That 39% are murders is indeed too many, and while don't have the F.B.I. or C.D.C break down of murders in front to me, I would not be surprised that the majority are gang and drug related violence. Since it is impossible to separate these people from their weapons, the solution must found elsewhere. Depriving the overwhelming law abiding population of their firearms is a ridiculous proposition and those who promote doing so have agendas that are not in the best interest on a free and democratic people who are firmly behind those Rights.
It's funny, but outside a few small villages and towns here that have passed protest ordinances, no one here is trying to force others to own or use firearms.
Contrast that to those people that appear tireless in their efforts to destroy the Rights of those who exercise their option to own guns. Even from forums such as the U.N., anti-gun forces conspire to control the choices of free people in other nations.
As far as your assertion that...
"There is no such thing as an absolute right to own a gun as it implies a right to kill, and nobody has that right. Besides, there are many non-lethal forms of self-defence."
I will only point out that the Right to effective self-defense, using lethal force, predates history and for someone to try to remove those Rights and leave people vulnerable to attack is unconscionable. We may wear better hats, but our need to protect ourselves from ourselves is as great as it ever was.
Try less than lethal methods to repel an determined attacker if you will and hope you have a chance to reflect upon your decision in the warm light of a better day. However, just don't expect a majority to embrace your reasoning and methods. Here at least, the Right to Bear Arms does exists and for good reason. That is a decision only the American People can decide to put aside.
"Ah. This was one small A&E unit trying to make a name and not a general proposal by the GMC. There are laws against carrying knives in the UK anyway."
All I can say to this is that great mischief has just such beginnings. Of course the Great Britain's "Knife Culture" does seem to be a legitimate growing problem, despite many restrictions on knives, some of which resemble those here.
With the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary trying to use amnesty for knife carriers and putting knife violations on a par with gun violations and a 73% increase this last year in muggings (42,000) together with a " 55 per cent increase in random attacks with knives on strangers." (51,700) I'd say that it is more than likely that more laws are in the works.
These numbers however are suspect, as the government has engaged in 'spinning' the books on crime, excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland, not including "offences against under-16s" and not reporting the full extent of commercial crimes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6156684.stm
The assertion is being made that "that nine out of 10 crimes are either not reported or go unpunished."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6207313.stm?ls
I must also question the implication that those people that break into houses are leaving whatever weapons the carry at home, even if they are 'only knives' (my emphasis, not yours).
More here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2304912,00.html
Even if guns are banned, criminals will have no difficulty obtain more, sad but true and the banning of firearms is certainly no grantee that crime will not increases.
As far as "* 54 people in England and Wales, and", I'll ask, where is Scotland or Ireland, if you prefer?
Of course none of this dialogue really means much, as I am not likely to persuade you and you have no chance of swaying me from my position. Perhaps we should rejoin our fellows and move on to a more appropriate topic for this forum?
Whatever you decide, the last word is yours
🙂
Cheers
