In message , Jim Yanik
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
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,

Handguns are easier to shoot in the US than the UK? News to me.

I used to be able to ace a pistol APWT in the Army, but then I shot one
or two hundred rounds of .45ACP a week. Other soldiers who were
proficient rifle shots and fully comfortable with firearms struggled to
get a pass mark (and it was an easy test: 32 rounds at 10 and 15 metres,
from memory).

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.

********. To quote Don Harstad from upthread,

"The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit
a relative about half the time, and that was because they were too
sleepy to duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a
civilian who stood at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment,
and fired six rounds at them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both
officers. He was aiming. (They were really p....ed when they got to the
top of those stairs... deaf, but pi...ed.)

Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell
anybody about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the
reporting standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would
advise a bit of caution when trying to compare data under those
circumstances."

Dodging the question, Jim?

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

It's not a dumb question: you're claiming that having more firearms
around would deter that theft. How, if you can't use them? And if you
*can* use them, how much collateral damage is permitted?

Remember, you're advocating untrained users with weapons they have
little experience with: because it's apparently easy to shoot well with
a handgun.

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.

Not all, I note. Note that the "repeated burglaries" was actually *one*
burglary (still too many, but beware of hype).

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.

Actually he did: the intruders needed only a screwdriver to effect
entrance.

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?

He turned his whole estate into an armed camp, Jim: "lookout posts" in
trees, stairs removed, booby-traps in the house. But no window locks and
he kept his dogs well away from the house.

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.

Interesting how "selective reporting" is cited in some cases and ignored
in others.

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?

Proves the scarcity, wouldn't you say?

I don't
keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
remembered incident I know of.

You mean there *aren't* hordes of other celebrity murders taking place?

You still haven't refuted it after all this
time,either.

What weapon would have saved her? The first warning she had was the
bullet hitting her.

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.)

I seem to recall Lennon was killed in the US: wasn't he protected by the
armed citizens around him?


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk