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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Shafer wrote in
: On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:30:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik wrote: ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were armed,people could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without much fear of theft. Then why so many tales about hanging horse thieves? Well,there was a lot sensationalization about the "Wild West".It's no different than the "if it bleeds,it leads" type of reporting in our media today. Which is it? Either horses could be left unattended safely or horse thieves stole them all the time and there were necktie parties regularly. But did it happen OFTEN? I don't believe so. Regularly,I don't believe so,either. Here in the "Not-so-wild West", it's possible to leave doors unlocked and horses unattended, without much fear of theft. Mary -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Doyle" wrote in message ...
I guess that's borne of the amount of firearms used in crime (from burglaries, robberies to muggings etc.) in the USA. Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S. By Joyce Lee Malcolm. http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. You will not get all the answers by comparing numbers of deaths. There is a legacy of social differences in the US and UK regarding immigration patterns of foreigners and treatment of minorities, and crime rates can be traced back to this. The British avoided some of these problems when they abandoned their colonies and the people in them -- which meant they obviously abandoned attendant social problems along with it. The rainy island of Britain is not exactly ideal for large plantations, with the sun not shining very often. Unlike the deep south of the United States, large British-owned plantations were more common in their colonies, where slaves and indentured servants could be carefully hidden from polite society in London. Britain is not quite the melting pot of cultures that is America, but it might be in the future. And the associated troubles are sure to follow. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Hix wrote:
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). Or, horror of horrors, get a job maybe... shudder -- -Gord. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Jim Doyle"
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Jim Doyle" "Jim Yanik" wrote in message . .. "Jim Doyle" wrote in : snip In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario above would most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy winning. I understand what you are explaining. I think it a little odd that, it at least seems, people can be prepared to kill to avoid court action. OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering my house and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his kneecap with a 9 iron. The badguy will never walk normally nor will he be pain free again. So he sues for violating his "civil rights," medical bills for care not received in prison and "pain and suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries love megamillion dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be forced to sell my house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life. Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least one felony against me, second I have to defend myself against a second assault in court and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a portion of my life. I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being judicially and financially raped by the criminal again I would seriously keep that in mind. Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and possibly win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
James Hart wrote:
Mary Shafer wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:09 -0700, (Marc Reeve) wrote: Cartoon of a stretch of desert highway with the standard "Speed checked by aircraft" sign, with an F-4 with CHP markings and a full bomb load flying above. I had that on a placard over my desk for years, except that the road sign had an F-4 silhouette on it as well. I found this one on the web a while back http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/speedenforcementbyair.jpg And here's a somewhat more old-fashioned one: http://www.kjon.com/cartoons/gm-002.html Sadly, no one seems to have the Phantom version online. -- Marc Reeve actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
(B2431) wrote in
: From: "Jim Doyle" "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Jim Doyle" "Jim Yanik" wrote in message . .. "Jim Doyle" wrote in : snip In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario above would most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy winning. I understand what you are explaining. I think it a little odd that, it at least seems, people can be prepared to kill to avoid court action. OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering my house and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his kneecap with a 9 iron. The badguy will never walk normally nor will he be pain free again. So he sues for violating his "civil rights," medical bills for care not received in prison and "pain and suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries love megamillion dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be forced to sell my house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life. Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least one felony against me, second I have to defend myself against a second assault in court and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a portion of my life. I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being judicially and financially raped by the criminal again I would seriously keep that in mind. Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and possibly win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Also the threat of retaliation or witness intimidation is drastically reduced if the criminal was killed,intentionally or not. Besides,you might not be in a position to apply a 9 iron,there might not be room to swing a club,it could be blocked by something,or he might close with you too quickly to strike effectively.Then the club may be used to strangle you.(That's if you are physically capable of wielding such weapons.Many people are not.) A handgun,however CAN be used in close quarters,very effectively,by most anyone.A much more effective equalizer. Not much will block the bullet,either. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote: "Jim Doyle" wrote in : SNIP No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless. Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence. But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk. OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks. And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though. Use of a firearm is considered 'deadly force' (in NZ). By legal definition, use of a firearm means intent to kill (unless no attempt is made to fire at the person (shooting into the air etc.) So, although not every shooting will result in death, legally you are attempting to kill someone when you shoot at them (hence, 'death sentence' and 'judge, jury, and executioner') |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote: From: "Jim Doyle" "Jim Yanik" wrote in message ... "Jim Doyle" wrote in : SNIP And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though. The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the draw if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not? Otherwise you'd pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection. So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your actions, and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which you both find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In fact - it is. It is simply NOT a matter of being judge, jury and executioner. Shooting is not the first choice. If the badguy doesn't retreat and you feel threatened then it's the badguy's fault, no one else's. The trouble is, this isn't what other people have been saying. Some have been saying... more or less, that shooting is the first response to an intruder.. even before you know anything about the intent (like, the person knocking on the door asking "Excuse me, can you tell me where I can find..." Let's try a nonlethal analogy. Badguy enters your house and threatens your children. You break his knee cap with a 9 iron. Badguy will never walk normal again. Whose fault is it? The badguy set up the scenario, the badguy committed a felony just entering an occupied dwelling (ever notice the penalties are higher for occupied dwellings than for unoccupied? There's a reason) The bad guy made threats. You have to act. Someone breaks into your house and threatens the family... you can use reasonable force to defend yourself or others... If the guy is still alive afterwards... well, they was lucky... But you shouldn't have a hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured when you grabbed it (and got the ammo out of another locked cabinet). Technically you shouldn't have the golf club lying handy (it implies premeditation, however, I don't see a jury convicting and neither will the police), but pulling one out of the golf bag is ok.... As an aside, I used to teach NRA courses including home protection. The word kill is never used and part of the course is taught by a lawyer and/or a law enforcement officer. We teach to "stop" the aggressor. If that means you have to kill then do it. In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario above would most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy winning. I don't think any intruder who gets whacked while engaged in 'home invasion' has a chance of even getting the case to court, let alone winning. OTOH we tend not to sue at the drop of a hat in NZ... As long as the householder used reasonable force there is no chance of them being sued. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in : SNIP 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? I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers. I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial killers/rapists. SNIP Jim, the not shooting them in the back is just another way of saying, not shooting them once they are no longer a threat (as in they are legging it out of there). Coming up behind someone committing a violent crime (assault).. you'll probably be able to use "reasonable force in the defence of another". (As in the case of the father who whacked the intruder standing in the dark over his daughter's bed... shooting the intruder in the back might present some problems, trying to smash his head in with a cricket bat contains the risks of collateral damage.) |
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 |