In the UK, the situation is a bit different:
Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller
The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part.
Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotguns, I'm not going to resist. Insurance will give me back all my stuff.
In my opinion I think comes down to a fundamental difference in attitudes. We're happy to let our government run things, we trust them with guns rather than anyone else. For (large segments of) the US population there isn't that trust. They don't like the idea of a government having all the power, there is a fundamental lack of trust there (please don't take that as criticism, I'm beginning to come round to that point of view!). It's the independent frontier mentality. Maybe due to difference in age of country? I don't know.
That particular precedent isn't just a one-time thing, it has been used in a variety of cases[1] since the ruling came down.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [1] - http://www.barneslawllp.com/police-not-required-protect/
I think this marks some confusion over exactly what constitutes 'rural'. The UK certainly has rural settings in terms of town size, small access roads, culture, etc. But having spent time in both, the UK just doesn't have anything like the US in terms of distance.
Salmon, Idaho is several hours from... anything, really. You could go from Inverness to Glasgow in about the time it takes to get to an actual city. It's down in a canyon, so there's no FM radio, much less cell phone service. The police force is eight people, with a guarantee that at least one will be on duty 24 hours a day.
If that one officer gets a call about an issue, he might well have a 20 minute drive - speeding, on empty roads - to the farm where there's a problem. And Salmon is the county seat. There are much smaller towns and farm communities out there. This isn't a problem you can realistically solve with better policing or more money, because things legitimately are that far apart.
---
Someone in my extended family spends winters snowed in - some years there's simply no access in or out of a 'town of 50 people for ~4 months straight. He keeps a rifle handy to shoot coyotes that come for his livestock. Are we really going to go with "he should wait for a police response, or insurance compensation"?
A friend of mine, with an exceedingly liberal family, grew up with a high-powered rifle at home, the sort of thing people regularly try to ban. For fear that in his town of six people, there was no other way to deal with a bear or moose that got aggressive.
A friend of a friend is disabled and chronically unemployed in the rural midwest. Hunted meat makes up a nontrivial percentage of his diet, because ammo is cheaper than food. This being America, saying "take away his gun but give him lifelong welfare" isn't going to work, and he'd hate you for it anyway - he's proud that he feeds himself just fine.
I'm not trying to be snarky here. In very rural America, this is the situation for a lot of people. These are people who don't live near any gun crime, but own and use guns for everyday purposes. It has more in common with northern Canada than any place in England or western Europe.
And there is a hell of a lot of difference between living in the (very) rural countryside, and living in a city.
I fully admit that my perspective is influenced by living in small country with relatively short distances between towns and cities (hell, it's even impossible to get more than 50km from the sea, anywhere in the entire country). But I honestly still think my reasoning stands up.
My objection, then, is that I have approximately zero faith in the people making these rules to recognize that. If a gun law is written, it will with near-perfect reliability be written by people who know little or nothing about guns, designed for comfortably suburban settings, and passed out of fear of urban violence.
So... I don't know that we disagree so much. I can support more gun regulation in theory, but almost always oppose it in practice because the things that get written are high-impact on practical use, yet totally ineffective at their goals.
Police don't have personal teleporters and there isn't an infinite number of them. Want a 5 minute response in the country? Pay 90% tax that goes to the police departments. I'd still be amazed if you'd get it down to under 10 minutes consistently.
> The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part.
Many Americans will argue that the 2A and personal weapons mean that home invasions are less likely to occur in the first place because of increased risk to the criminal (getting your head shot off).
Not necessarily saying they're right, but there is another side to gun control.
Another argument is that the wide availability of guns, combined with the harsh penalties faced by criminals, create an environment where criminals become needlessly aggressive and ruthless, because "well, I'm going away for 20 anyway, might as well go all the way".
As far as the "age of the country"... I'm calling BS. Unless your country was formed within the last generation, the matter is irrelevant how long people have been living in a certain territory. And if you want to get technical, the US Constitution is the oldest, surviving charter of government in existence. I resent the fact that Europeans have the gall to suggest that we're the immature ones when it comes to government.
No, even if that was relevant, if you want to get technical that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is older, whether you date from writing or adoption.
> I resent the fact that Europeans have the gall to suggest that we're the immature ones when it comes to government.
We are, and those of us who are quick to resent it being pointed out do nothing to diminish the truth of that. We're old enough that the (second, actually) system set up when we founded the country is dated, and young enough that we still imagine that our founders' innovations are somehow the end of history so we don't even consider dealing with it. The latter is immaturity and arrogance.
Ref: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bo...
You’re also arguing to the wrong side of the brain. In face of danger, I will never ever choose to remain helpless. It goes against every single instinct a man has.
Citation needed.
In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession.
Sources:
[1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-s...
[2] - https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...
The number of justifiable gun homicides (Self-defense) is closer to ~250/year. [2]
So, your gun is indeed twice as likely to kill someone in an accident, then a bad guy in self-defense. (Never mind that not all of those justifiable homicides prevented violence against your physical person. Killing a burglar who wanted your stereo is lumped in the same category as killing someone who wanted to murder you.)
I don't have much of a horse in the legislature of gun control, but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease.
This is a ridiculous conclusion. Sorry, you can't just take numbers from one study, and divide by another to approximate relative risk or odds ratio. That isn't how public health statistics and policy works.
It's a long report and sounds like an interesting finding.
Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities. doesn't exactly sound conclusive.
"However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."
I suppose the problem is that I read In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. and expected evidence showing that the benefits were greater than the risks, rather than a simple citation of research claiming there is a benefit.
They'll never understand true freedom, and considering their land is under siege its not surprise the level of doublethink they have to do to still agree with their backwards way of life.
I detest every fearsome second a cop has to live in America, every time he walks up to a car or a flats door. To be honest, in such a country, i can very well understand somebody who wants to return home in the evening- and thus shoots first.
That's cute, as if you've ever had actual freedom in the US.
Short of that, it does also have a lot to do with visibility / response times: If i were able to see the sheriffs dept. cruising our backroads more frequently - I would feel much more assured of my safety, and probably be less concerned with keeping weapons for personal defense.
That explains a lot about the current situation in your country, honestly.
I take great issue with this. You say you came from 'country living' - but I find that hard to believe in light of your comment above.
Anyone who lives in the country, where it will take the cops 10-20 minutes to respond, knows damn well why we have the 2A and the right to keep firearms in our homes for self-defense.
Source: Repelled a home invasion robbery attempt at 16 - it took 15 minutes for sheriff's department to arrive after 911 call as they were coming into our home.