"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"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.

I'd like to know where you got this figure of 99%.

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.

No,you're wrong here.The purpose of a criminal carrying ANY weapon is to
put fear into their chosen victim,to allow him to dominate the situation,to
insure that the victim will not try to resist.Considering the fact that
most US citizens do not carry firearms,it would be illogical to think that
criminals carry guns to "protect" themselves against their victims.
Now,they do carry to protect themselves against -other- criminals. That's
where the larger number of US "gun murders" come from,criminal-criminal
shootings.Mostly drug related,too.

Also those of the police.

Wrong again.Criminals do not carry guns to "protect" themselves from
police.The last thing they want is to get in a shootout with police.
WHERE do you get these wild ideas?



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.

Yes,they don't need them in the UK because you folks are so willing to
stand by and allow them to make off with your possessions.


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.'

Except that it was low BEFORE the UK gun control,showing that the presence
of guns is NOT the factor.That's the part you miss.

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.



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.


Well,you never KNOW until they've left and you still are unharmed.But why
should anyone stand aside and allow criminals to enter one's home and make
off with their possessions? Why minimize the risks for the criminal,and
force the ODCs to bear the risks?

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?


Someone who will not accept criminals rights over decent citizens rights.
The right to own property is part of being free.If others can enter your
home and steal with impunity,you have no freedom.


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.

There's shouldn't even BE a trial in such circumstances as a criminal
inside one's home.If evidence shows a wrongful entry,then it's justifiable
homicide,or self-defense.
Either way,the criminal will NOT be doing it again,a BENEFIT to society.
Who knows how many others he would harm?

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.


His BEING THERE is a threat to my safety.
He's not there for any benign purpose,and I can't read minds or see the
future.I don't know what he may decide to do.
And he has NO right to my property.


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






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net