"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"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')

But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or
zipgun,and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at
you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that?

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.And of
course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like
kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict an
ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm.


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?

Quite often,a group will choose to flee rather than risk getting
shot,something life threatening and hard to explain to officials.

And being armed still betters YOUR chances against a group,better than any
other item or method.

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.

I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial
killers/rapists.

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"?

I don't know all the circumstances of that incident,so I can't say.

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.

Sure it's deadly force.So what? It's still not being "judge,jury and
executioner".There's more than a good chance that you will not die.
The risk should be the criminals,not the ODCs.

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.

Some states allow "defense of property".Although for just setting foot on
it seems unreasonable,without futher knowledge of the situation.

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.

Well,if the guy turns his back to you and reaches for a weapon,then it
would be allowable.It depends on the circumstances.

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.

Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a shotgun,and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection
while outside the home.

(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



That just shows how one CAN get shot in LONDON,in -nice- places,and that
guns(handguns) ARE available in the UK,regardless of the UK gun laws.Too
many Britishers are unwilling to recognize that.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net