"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:




Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less
that a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if
he's fending away Indians from the homestead.

Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on
ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a
small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment
complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a
report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who
successfully defend themselves with
firearms
every year(in the US).

Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on
the
London
street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to
death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also
wounded by the burglar.

Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against
larger,stronger young thugs unarmed?
Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect
everyone,24/7/365? It's not so.

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of
the two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity
to fend off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent
him from breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs.
However, were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar
would still go to her home taking a pistol with him.

If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have
read
of
many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to
their
gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and
they get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even
after being shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend
themselves increases the risks for the criminals,often to the point
they pick some other crime to commit.And it's far better than just
hoping the criminal has good intentions towards you.

Which is the safer situation for
the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former.

Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details:

In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths.
In 2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517
murders in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000.
Even accounting for the relative population sizes of the two
countries, you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that
does not include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms
in the same time period.

Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the
UK must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher
than in the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing.

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.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.


True, the law can never prevent the criminals from owning firearms, and in
recent years there's been a steady stream of weapons into the UK from the
Baltic States. However, a criminal in America is 99.9% likely to own a gun
and have it with him inside your house, in the UK this is just not the case.
The type of criminal who carries a gun in the UK is not petty enough to rob
your home, they'll be bigfish.

The driving factor for an American criminal to carry a gun is to protect
himself from your 9mm. Also those of the police. That puts you, your family,
and any bystanders in danger each time you take up your gun and fight the
good fight like a true American hero. The police have a right to carry guns,
as by your law, you do too. You are very obviously a conscientious gun user
and very capable with your weapon, yet not all citizens of your fair country
are that meticulous, and that's when they become too much of a danger for
society to accept.

Were a close friend or relative of yours killed whilst at the bank by a
member of the public attempting to foil a heist, are you au fait with that?
If you are, there's something wrong.

As regards to violent beating/stabbings in the UK - I've haven't seen any
information that would indicate that they are anymore likely/unlikely than
in the US. So you can speculate whether that is the case, but it's not the
issue at hand.

I have not, in my posts, stated that
the UK is some crime free haven, nor that the US is some 'Escape from
New York' style war-zone. Really, bad people exist in all societies,
just in some quite a few of them have guns.

You are incorrect to state that at-home burglaries are much higher in
the UK. 1,309 domestic burglaries occur per 100,000 population in the
US equating to a 1.3% chance of your VCR ending up in someone's swag
bag each year. Where as in England there is an average of 14.5
domestic burglaries per 1,000 households - being conservative and
assuming just two persons per household (the average is actually a
little over three) - that's 14.5 incidents per 2,000 population, i.e.
a 0.73% chance of being burgled.

Simply put, you are at least twice as likely to be burgled in the US
than UK, (although obviously it depends greatly upon the area in which
you live, since these burglaries will not be spread evenly throughout
either country's populace).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html


That, if anything, proves my point over yours. From the very first line of
your reference:
'The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with
strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate.'

Although I appreciate that the website goes on to argue that gun control is
not the limiting factor - I disagree with those opinions presented - yet the
hard facts remain. Just look at that table.


http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...1,761948,00.ht
ml



I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with
deadly force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

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?
Why do you wish to protect criminals?

I have no desire to harbour/protect criminals, especially of the variety you
describe. They, frankly, are ****s and deserve everything that is due them.
There are of course various tiers of criminal and I would argue that an
opportunist burglar in to swipe your VCR is not deserving of two in the
chest and one in the head. They aren't all baby-eating, gang rapists off on
a busman's holiday to your front room. You, as neither policeman nor judge,
are not in the position to legally deliver deadly force.

So, yes, kill the ******* but face the repercussions.



It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law
when they purchase their pistol, nor have they been deputised to shoot
perps by the local sheriff . As the judge, jury and literally the
executioner, you're doing as much a disservice to the public as the
chap you've just shot. The most basic appreciation of rudimentary
criminal justice yields at least that.

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.

I am not the drama queen you seem to think I am. That phrase, cliché that it
is, is poignant nonetheless. I agree, criminals should bear the
responsibility of their actions over their victims. Yet regardless of
M-kills, K-kills, whichever, the concept of a citizen delivering deadly
force - successful or not - what would you call that person?



They either get caught
on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get
killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the
public.

But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use
firearms to defend themselves.

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. 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.)

If I believed my life, or more importantly that of my wife or child, to be
in danger and lethal force were the only option, then yes I would be fully
prepared for trial over the legality of the death. That's reasonable. What
isn't reasonable is to fire upon a man you find in your home who presently
doesn't represent a life or death situation. Hard to understand, I know, but
you as a citizen has a duty to all - fellow citizen and criminal alike - to
preserve life.


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


Yes, I agree. As the onus should be on you to defend yourself at trial for
the death of whoever you shoot, let a jury decide your fate and the
legitimacy of your actions. There should be no 'Get out of jail free' card -
bedlam soon follows.

Jim Doyle



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net