"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
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.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs are
not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become proficient
with a handgun.

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

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
away.

So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs away.

Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?

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

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

Dodging the question, Jim?

Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are you
allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How much risk are
you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd, how many bystanders
are you permitted to hit before your use of force becomes "unreasonable"?

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.

They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and drew
their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're selected
from your peers. If Martin had called the police and presented them with a
corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe have been hit for the
illegal firearm.

In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the police is
acceptable behaviour in the US?

(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.)

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The
police failed him.

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably eccentric,
refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a lot to his own
misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car stolen, but part of the
deal is not leaving it parked with the window open, door unlocked and keys
in the ignition.

Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders so you
can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have left your
room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated murder.

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.

So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK?

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper headlines.

Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a while,
Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK actually a lot
quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you to believe?

Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

--
Paul J. Adam