"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"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.


Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,and I doubt that UK
criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
It's simply not that hard to use 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.

Depends on how close he is to you,too.

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?

No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
game.

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?

Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of 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.

And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after
repeated burglaries.

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.

Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?

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.

Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.

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?

Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid? I don't
keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
remembered incident I know of.You still haven't refuted it after all this
time,either.

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?

well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)

But peaceniks have a habit of changing their position after they've been
attacked or threatened,and they find out what the police CAN'T do for their
security.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net