"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the
other non gun crimes in the UK.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.

Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are
replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as
"firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using
two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime')

It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.

And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and
surprised?

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's
never a good thing to shoot anyone.

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than
shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?

I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to
prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not
generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers.

Why do you wish to protect criminals?

A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of
knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy
several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"?

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in
the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so
shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to
kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is
"deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to
take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed
rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible
felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force.

I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to shoot
and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and you're allowed to
kill them. Same poster claimed that this was entirely right and reasonable.

And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in
the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

See above for the inconsistency.

These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD
be.

True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your
house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come
back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are
in their front, not their back.

(And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the back of
the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She could have had a
MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference)

--
Paul J. Adam