If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote: Jim Doyle wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote: SNIP Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. SNIP This should be qualified. The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there). In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle, shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy. In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners) must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds self-defence. The UK operates in a basically similar way. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. 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 http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...1,761948,00.ht ml I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America, and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly force that are so willing to use it. 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? 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. 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.) These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
: "Jay Stranahan" wrote in message ... 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. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former. Okay, look.. I don't want to come off sounding like some chest-beating right-wing arsehole, but.... look at what you just wrote. Given the choice between self defense in her own home and placing herself at the mercy of a young male intruder, the woman in question should throw herself on the mercy of the intruder for *fear* that *he* might be armed. I'm sorry, but that's loathesome. Is this what you would choose for your own wife or mother? Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the first place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two options, either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on the flip side, they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a shoot out? The granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better that there were no guns involved. Well,you seem to be wrong here,as there was such an incident here in the Central Florida area,and the 50 yr old lady came out alive,after receiving two shots,but killed the stalker that smashed through her patio door,armed with a gun and a piece of rope.And i've read of many others in the "Armed Citizen" column of the NRA,which reprints articles -from US newspapers- where ODCs have used firearms to defend themselves against criminals. Legal,legitimate self-defenses. At least allowing the granny to be armed -if she chooses-,gives her a fair chance of defense,something you seem to wish to deny to citizens. It certainly is NOT better that she not be armed and face an intruder. No way,no matter how you spin it. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value
your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****? in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living with, that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only means to get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If the the criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang horse thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go into town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse. Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the 2003 world champion drill team Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
Jim Doyle wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote: 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. Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. I assure you he is not joking, nor is firearm defense an innappropriate response to a home invasion. The only one of your points upon which there will be wide agreement is that it is never (or rather, rarely) a good thing to shoot someone - just as it is rarely a good idea to bash in a person's skull with a bat, or to carve their heart in half with a kitchen knife. However, when that person invades your home, clearly with the intent to do you harm (as in a burglary; murderous intent need not be present) - the only safe way to ensure he does not do you physical harm, is with overwhelming force... and the more efficient/effective your choice of tools, the better. It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when they purchase their pistol, You'd be surprised; many states do. (Particularly where "concealed carry" is available to non-convict and sane citizens.) nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff. No one - including those living where effective means of self- defense are denied to them - requires deputization in order to defend themselves from harm. Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take the life of another? If that killing is the only way to defend yourself from harm, yes - and the tool used to do the deed isn't germane to the question: a brick can kill you just as dead as a bullet. I fully concur...If -you're- the burglar who shows up uninvited and unexpectadly at the foot of my bed at o dark thirty then brace yourself for about four 9MM FMJ's to the chest. I'll gladly discuss right and wrong later in daylight when I'm fully dressed and have all my wits about me. Thank you for listening. -- -Gord. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote: Did it ever occur to you that one possible reason there had been no burglaries there in the preceeding twelve years is because many of his neighbors were similarly armed? (And the burglars would naturally seek less-dangerous territory?) Just wondering... Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area, doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in place No, they actually work better if the would-be criminal is *uncertain*. If the risk is analyzed and determined to be too high for comfort, he'll go elsewhere or go into a different line of work (such as moving from confrontational to non-confrontational types of crime). |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote: People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached. Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be the case. (The rate of burglary of occupied homes in the U.S. is much lower than the equivalent rate in the U.K., for example.) 10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself. No, mostly it speaks to a failed policy of Prohibition; most of the 10K you cite are people engaged in one aspect or other of the illicit drug trade. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
*White* Helicopters??!!! | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 13 | March 9th 04 07:03 PM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |