"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
:


"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%.

Figure of speech, used to emphasise the my point. Take your average
American (successful) burglar - I'd stake my mortgage on him being
inside your house with a gun. He wouldn't be successful for long were
he not to carry a weapon - let's face it, he probably wouldn't be
alive for long either.

Well,that's not necessarily true;most households in the US do not have any
guns in them.Some locales prohibit it entirely.and most burglars do not
enter while armed,because most US burglaries are done to unoccupied
homes.They aren't expecting any confrontation.The areas with the strictest
gun control have the worst crime records.

The type of criminal who carries a gun in
the UK is not petty enough to rob your home, they'll be bigfish.

This was the point - a comparison between criminals who carry guns in
the US -vs.- those in the UK.


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.

Even accounting for the criminal-on-criminal murders in the US, you're
still several orders of magnitude out between the amount of murders in
the US relative to those within the UK per head of population. Of the
former, 60% are gun related. Obviously to decommission every gun in
America is a ludicrous proposal - you are now forced to live within
this gun culture that your country has grown up with.

Heck,the country was CREATED by that "gun culture".
By armed revolution,which is why we have a 2nd Amendment.

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.

Certainly, nobody would wish for a shoot out. However, were I in
America on a burglary spree the likelihood of me coming across the
police is a possibility worth considering. Should those police be even
a tiny bit as trigger happy as yourself, they're likely to shoot me -
certainly if I'm doing a runner (as any criminal would).

Uh,thye're more likely to shoot you (as a criminal)if you are ARMED.
Police have to operate under stricter rules of conduct than ordinary
citizens,WRT firearm use.That's why criminals in the US fear the armed
citizen more than the police;they know the police have a duty to -arrest-
before shooting,while citiznes have greater leeway to shoot a criminal.(the
way it should be.)

Therefore, a
gun is my only option. In a similar manner, the likelihood of coming
across a well meaning ODC makes a weapon a worthwhile investment.

WHERE do you get these wild ideas?

Reverse logic from your argument:
'He's got a gun and is happy to kill me' = 'I now carry a gun for
protection.'

Simple.

But faulty logic.It just doesn't happen that way.




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.

I am no less willing for a **** to break into my house and swipe my
Hi-Fi than the next guy. I'll use reasonable force to apprehend him or
at the very least fend him off. However, I am not prepared to have the
life of even the most prolific burglar in my conscience for the sake
of £600. Killing is blatantly the ultimate sin, don't let a hot head
tell you otherwise.

Wrong.Even in the Bible and other religions,they recognize the right of
self-defense,and I'm not even a believer.


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.

I read the article. The reason I disagree with its conclusion is thus:
the UK and US are very different countries when it comes to the
attitude toward firearms. Prior to Dunblane and the severe
restrictions imposed on gun ownership, the situation was pretty much
the same as it is now - on the whole people were not readily prepared
to kill. There was no significant change in the amount of gun deaths
in the UK after '96 since they had a low occurrence rate previously,
and they have thankfully remained low.

The presence of guns doesn't yield the murder rate; it is the attitude
of ready willingness to use them on another person.

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?

I don't suggest welcoming them with a guided tour and free evaluation
of the family heirlooms - let's not twist this. There are non-lethal
ways to secure and protect your home before you resort to sleeping
with your Remington.

Yes,that worked SO well for the Queen,who had an intruder right in her
bedroom,or for George Harrsion,who could afford good security,yet still got
knifed nearly to death.


If you choose to shot to kill or maim in the
defence of your possessions - face the consequences of your actions.
If you are correct to kill - let a jury tell you so.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that criminals forego a number of
rights when they enter your home, and I think it laughable that in the
US a criminal can sue for damages incurred whilst on your premises.
However, the most fundamental human right - life - is something
neither you nor I can deprive another of if he's simply stuffing your
wris****ch into his pocket.

How do I know he's just happy with doing only that? I don;t read minds,I
don't see into the future. If he doesn't comply with my instructions,so I
can call the police,I shoot him.He's a threat just being in my house.

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.

Of course there should be a trial.

An investigation to see if filing charges is necessary,yes.Otherwise,no.
If the shoot was justified,why should the victim suffer a trial? Any jury
would not have been there,would not know the risks or the situation.

If a man is murdered, whatever the
circumstances, society has a commitment to pursue justice. If your
actions are good and true - using an acceptable amount of force to
repel an attacker, yet killing him - then you should walk out of that
trial a free man. On the other hand, should you have used excessive
force - that man's life is on your hands and you are to be accountable
for it.

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