"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the
accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

In the hands of ODCs.yes.

How do you tell ODCs from criminals who haven't been convicted yet?

Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.

Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
paradise.

I'm arguing against transplanting US solutions to the UK, is all.

What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?

Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).

you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.

You don't get carjacked in the UK, Jim, it's on a par with elephant-rated
fatalities: you can find a couple but they're celebrated for their rarity.

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do I
detain him?

Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.

No, let's suppose I took it off to wash my hands in a public restroom, and
he snatches it up and runs. Can I shoot him in the back in order to reclaim
my watch?

Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I shoot
him?

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.

How does one "safely" detain another with a firearm? If you're not willing
and ready to shoot, it's not effective: to be effective, it certainly can't
be safe (at least not for the detainee!) I'm not opposed to the concept, but
I'm trying to pare away the hyperbole and get to the facts of when you
*actually* are and are not allowed to use deadly force, rather than the
exaggerations spouted by both extremes.

Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed. (He'd have been
acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have been
acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth. But to (a)
pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in headlong flight,
and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to the court, convinced
the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself but had planned and
prepared to kill.)

The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.

And he was entitled to do so: but not to cold-bloodedly plan the killing of
the next person to intrude.

Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.

I'm a little uncertain about this one. I'd rather say that the burden of
proof is on the criminal to show that they were seriously mistreated. For
instance, a criminal has no right to protest about a householder using
reasonable force to drive them off, detain them or disable them. Even a
burglar is entitled to complain if the householder then starts applying
electroshock therapy or just a damn good kicking to "teach him a lesson", or
just for amusement.

You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's life,

I'm just curious where the threshold falls for the use of deadly force and
its attendant risks.

but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property.

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous where
you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and unprevented.
Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so issuing firearms
wouldn't help.

--
Paul J. Adam