The US Gun Debate - BUT from a different angle

[Zut50]

Dont you have a police force in the US? And don't you buy insurance?

If you get robbed while you're in the house, you stay calm and dont do anything stupid. The only 'weapon' you need against the intruder is a good look at their face! Then you call the police and they deal with it. And then you have a good moan the the insurace firms are a corrupt set of b$!%&ds, and just buy a new TV or whatever.

If you overreact and start confronting the intruder then you're only going to get you or your family hurt. If you shoot him then you deserve all the prison time youre going to get IMHO. Tony Whatshisface deserved to go to prison if you ask me. I do think he should have had some rights since he practically knew it was coming, but to shoot that kid was going WAAY too far.

[VorLonUK]

MeFist,

Quote
Let's forget guns. What I am asking is this: should a property owner have recourse to force if an intruder has entered his home? If 52% of all buglaries occur when a homeowner is present in the UK hasn't the homeowner's rights been violated? If so should he have recourse to force and how much? I consider this topic tp be uniquely different from gun ownership.

I do believe that Yes you should have some recourse and why not?

The response (recourse action) has to be justified and proportionate if action is taken (UK Law). That seems about right to me. I know MeFist you were trying to perhaps seperate this question from purely the gun issue, but most have mentioned about using guns in this situation. I can't imagine the pure Carnage that could take place if you Actually used a gun against an armed robber. Most of the guys on here just haven't even thought straight when being all Gungho about apprehending a gunman. A Gun fight in your own home, whilst you are half asleep and your family are asleep (up until that point). Could you imagine the carnage? and what happens if there is more than one robber?  You'd be far better off letting them take what they want and then calling the Police.  

Items and property in general can be replaced Your family can't be...  What's thay you Americans say? Something like "Get Real" ?

[Mefistofeles]

The problem with the intruder in your home topic is what rights to do you as a homeowner have against that intruder?  
Unless we clarify what rights and priveleges a man has in his own home the issue can pretty ridiculous.  For example

Quote
If you overreact and start confronting the intruder then you're only going to get you or your family hurt.

What if he grabs something that affects your livelihood; if example you're a salesman and an intruder grabs your laptop that has your contact list.   He's literally grabbed your livelihood.   Would it be wrong to confront someone if they're about to deprive you of your livelihood?  

Or what if despite your best efforts to be calm he grabs your wife or kid; for whatever reason.  I think some sort of offensive response would be justified.    

I think British thinking on this subject is flawed to begin with because its based on the idea that the intruder's rights supercede the homeowner's rights and that the intruder is willing to play fair.  He's just broken the law; I think the fair play concept goes out the window from the very begining of the scenario.

[VorLonUK]

Quote
What if he grabs something that affects your livelihood; if example you're a salesman and an intruder grabs your laptop that has your contact list. He's literally grabbed your livelihood. Would it be wrong to confront someone if they're about to deprive you of your livelihood?

Oh Please... You're having a laugh mate!

I cannot believe you said that, unbelievable.  Who cares about a poxy laptop when your families lives are in danger? - well you obviously do! Strangest thing I've heard all day and I've watched the international news several times too...

[ric]

Quote
Originally posted by: Zut50
Dont you have a police force in the US? And don't you buy insurance?

If you get robbed while you're in the house, you stay calm and dont do anything stupid. The only 'weapon' you need against the intruder is a good look at their face! Then you call the police and they deal with it. And then you have a good moan the the insurace firms are a corrupt set of b$!%&ds, and just buy a new TV or whatever.

If you overreact and start confronting the intruder then you're only going to get you or your family hurt. If you shoot him then you deserve all the prison time youre going to get IMHO. Tony Whatshisface deserved to go to prison if you ask me. I do think he should have had some rights since he practically knew it was coming, but to shoot that kid was going WAAY too far.

This really is plain and simple--

I break in your house and you take a good look at me...well, I will shoot you and all your family again and again. I do not want to leave any witnesses
Defend your family and property with all your might. At least if you die, you die with your boots on like a man

It's either the attacker or me and I don’t give a rat’s ass if I go to prison or get the chair. Remember the attacker/intruder has the means, the opportunity and intent to disable or kill you





   

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles
What if he grabs something that affects your livelihood; if example you're a salesman and an intruder grabs your laptop that has your contact list.   He's literally grabbed your livelihood.   Would it be wrong to confront someone if they're about to deprive you of your livelihood?

You seriously have to be kidding, I am self employed and my livelihood rests on lots of pieces of equipment that lie around my house. But there is no way I would care about them enough to risk my life or the the lives of my family.

If they are stolen or damaged insurance will replace them, or I will find ways to work without them till I can afford to replace them myself. But there is no way I am going to risk him killing me, or my family because he has one of my possesions.

By the same argument would you justify running back into a burning building to recover the same item?

Quote

Or what if despite your best efforts to be calm he grabs your wife or kid; for whatever reason.  I think some sort of offensive response would be justified.    

I think British thinking on this subject is flawed to begin with because its based on the idea that the intruder's rights supercede the homeowner's rights and that the intruder is willing to play fair.  He's just broken the law; I think the fair play concept goes out the window from the very begining of the scenario.

No, your thinking and interpretation of our views is wrong. We don't care about the intruders rights, but what we are putting above all is the risk to our families and children. If he grabs your wife or child, there is no way you can attack him offensively without either hitting your own family or him hurting them before you can get there.

Defencively there are tactics you can use to seperate him from your family and then hold him or trap him until the authorities get there. Under the law you are allowed to use suitable force to remove him from your house, that is the minimum possible to get him out If you go above the minimum possible, that is vigilante justice you are taking revenge rather than using a suitble force to defend your property and that is as illegal in the US as it is here. Whether or not the police in the US will prosecute is a completely different issue.

However it would seem that in some states at least, this is the case.


Man held in death of burglary suspect
Homeowner Charged After Allegedly Killing Burglar
Mobile County homeowner charged in fatal shooting
Prosecuted homeowner blasts officials

[Mefistofeles]

The doctrine for self defense in the United States is based on being in fear of your life.   In most the cases you mentioned the defendants "chased" the burglars ;I suspect that's why they were prosecuted.   Logically speaking how can you be in fear of your life if you chase someone.?  With exception of the last case prosecutors had some sort of evidence indicating that the ihome owners in question tracked down the intruders after they fled the scene.

However the last case is very interesting because the defendant is being held on a less serious charge; weapons possesion rather than assualt with a dangerous weapon.   In fact the defendant is being charged with a misdemeanor and not a felony; I suspect this has more to do with the defendant not updating his firearms registration rather than shooting someone.   In my opinion  the homeowner was probably treated more leniently in this case because he did not follow the intruder.

I guess different countries have very different attitudes about self defense.  The principle of chasing down a defendant probably wouldn't have any impact on a British trial; yet here in America often times its a very important fact for distinguishing justifiable homicide from murder.  Note that in our crime statics all murders are counted towards our homicide totals; even officier related shootings.      On the other hand your doctrine of minimum force would probably have no affect on whether or not prosecutor would chose  to file charges against a particular homeowner.

Its funny this situation shows us how different the criminal justice system is in both the United Kingdom and United States.  An interesting study in contrast.

Of course that brings up another point; is this debate on firearms really a debate on the role fire arms in society or just a huge "cultural misunderstanding" between the Brits and the Americans?   Cant we all just get along?  

[Zut50]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles
The doctrine for self defense in the United States is based on being in fear of your life.

Thats just sad!

Quote
Of course that brings up another point; is this debate on firearms really a debate on the role fire arms in society or just a huge "cultural misunderstanding" between the Brits and the Americans?   Cant we all just get along?  

Yeah OK *hug*

Seriously though, I think you've got it there. I suppose the real question is 'Why do Americans feel the need for guns more than Brits?', or 'Why are Americans more afraid of crime?' (/michael moore!!). Im starting to realise than you want guns mostly for the same reason you want a fast car, but theres still the matter of a gun as self-defence that I dont understand. Perhaps we need yet another thread!!  

[VorLonUK]

Quote
Cant we all just get along?

As long as you promise not to shoot me!  

rofl, now that was uncalled for (by me)

[BallisticGelatin]

Quote
Seriously though, I think you've got it there. I suppose the real question is 'Why do Americans feel the need for guns more than Brits?

Or possibly the question should be "Why do the British like a Big Brother type Nannie State in which all of their needs are taken care of by 'The State'."  (Including protecting you and your family from the Boogeyman?)

Oh, and yes I do realize that there are some Americans with the same 'Take care of Me!' attitude...some of them post on this forum.  What I think makes Americans great (in general) is that we have the rugged individualist mindset...we will take care of ourselves thank you very much.   Let the U.S. government deal with foreign military and terrorist foes....we'll take care of the home invaders and other scum.

Another question could possibly be...."Why are you afraid of a gun in the hands of a LAW ABIDING citizen?"  I'd truly love to hear the answer to that one....

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin

Quote
Seriously though, I think you've got it there. I suppose the real question is 'Why do Americans feel the need for guns more than Brits?

Or possibly the question should be "Why do the British like a Big Brother type Nannie State in which all of their needs are taken care of by 'The State'."  (Including protecting you and your family from the Boogeyman?)

Perhaps the question should be, "Why are you americans scared of the boogeyman, when we brits arent?"

We don't expect the state to take care of our needs, very few of our needs are catered for by the state but what we do pay for are services such as fire, police and health and when we pay for something we demand value for money. Hence we pay for a police force to keep the bad guys from killing us in our sleep and for the most part, they do that. Problem solved no need for personal protection unless someone we know actually wants us dead.

Once that is in place the only need for guns is for pleasure; collections, target shooting and sport shooting.

Quote

Oh, and yes I do realize that there are some Americans with the same 'Take care of Me!' attitude...some of them post on this forum.  What I think makes Americans great (in general) is that we have the rugged individualist mindset...we will take care of ourselves thank you very much.   Let the U.S. government deal with foreign military and terrorist foes....we'll take care of the home invaders and other scum.

Then why do you continue to pay for a police force and fire service then?
If you are really individualist you would forgoe those things and provide your own militia's and put out housefires by yourself. The truth is you like to think you are all these things yet when it gets out of your control you still expect the state to help you and that is hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Quote

Another question could possibly be...."Why are you afraid of a gun in the hands of a LAW ABIDING citizen?"  I'd truly love to hear the answer to that one....

I'm not when it's in the hands of a law abiding citizen. It's the number of times that non-law abiding citizens have gotten weapons legally and massacred lots of people that you need to worry about. Think of the number of High school killings such as columbine where law-abiding parents had their children steal their guns and take them to school. The number of kids who have found their law-abiding parents weapon and shot themselves.. The number of people who have legally bought weapons over the counter then went on a rampage killing indiscrimanately. The thing is that tougher gun legislation can help these situations yet the NRA will shout about the right to bear arms and nothing will change, that is the worry.

[Overkill]

Quote
Why do the British like a Big Brother type Nannie State in which all of their needs are taken care of by 'The State'." (Including protecting you and your family from the Boogeyman

How old is this guy? Jeez. We don't have a "nannie state" (far from it these days) we have a welfare state that our taxes provide for, that was set up so that all as promised by the likes of Churchill, would  have a fair provision of health, education, pension and protection by the state against crime etc. And why not? The British People fought two wars to get it.    

[Tmagic650]

I agree Overkill,
the English have been beside us on the battle fields and off for many years. They are great fighters and great people

[Mefistofeles]

Quote
They are great fighters and great people

I have to disagree strongly with that statement.   British comedies are esoteric and strange!  Monty Python isn't worthy of standing on the same stage as Jim Carrey.   Their cooking; if you can even call it that is appauling.  Look at their national dishes: kidney pie,black pudding, hagus!  

I'm just kidding I think there's alot to be said for British people.  Just keep them out of your kitchen and away from your comedy clubs.  

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles

Quote
They are great fighters and great people

I have to disagree strongly with that statement.   British comedies are esoteric and strange!  Monty Python isn't worthy of standing on the same stage as Jim Carrey.   Their cooking; if you can even call it that is appauling.  Look at their national dishes: kidney pie,black pudding, hagus!  

I'm just kidding I think there's alot to be said for British people.  Just keep them out of your kitchen and away from your comedy clubs.

Then why do you keep trying to copy british comedies and have them fail miserably, when we can just appreciate your comedy along side our own?

Red Dwarf, Coupling, The Office, Fawlty Towers, Men Behaving Badly, steptoe and Son (the list is virtually endless) all were made into U.S versions which flopped badly

Then there is your appreciation of British Stand Up, Bill Connolly, Bill Bailey, Tracy Ulman, Lee Evans and others have all had majorly successful carreers in the U.S.

Haggis is spelt so, and all the meals you  mention are working men's meals along with the cornish pasty, they cover most of the major food groups in one bite which makes them highly efficient meals for providing balnced nutrition and high calories for men working down coal shafts and so on, closer to the Sea you see more fish based diets and in the countryside more fresh meat based diets. I'd like to see what some "American" meals provide most seem to be high on calories low on nutrition..

[Arrow]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles

Quote
They are great fighters and great people

I have to disagree strongly with that statement.   British comedies are esoteric and strange!  Monty Python isn't worthy of standing on the same stage as Jim Carrey.   Their cooking; if you can even call it that is appauling.  Look at their national dishes: kidney pie,black pudding, hagus!  

I'm just kidding I think there's alot to be said for British people.  Just keep them out of your kitchen and away from your comedy clubs.

Ok, the cooking comment I can understand, but insulting Monty Python is blasphemy!

[BallisticGelatin]

Then why do you continue to pay for a police force and fire service then?
If you are really individualist you would forgoe those things and provide your own militia's and put out housefires by yourself. The truth is you like to think you are all these things yet when it gets out of your control you still expect the state to help you and that is hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Umm, excuse me...but don't confuse my admiration of a smaller limited government with someone who wants NO government in place....Just because someone doesn't want government in every facet of their lives doesn't mean they want absolute anarchy.  And no, when Hurricane Charley just came through and dropped two trees on my house, I didn't go running to my Big Brother for help....I prepared for the storm ahead of time like any SENSIBLE person.  And I will deal with the situation myself.

Quote
I'm not when it's in the hands of a law abiding citizen. It's the number of times that non-law abiding citizens have gotten weapons legally and massacred lots of people that you need to worry about.

Yeah, the anti-gunners use that argument all the time....But there are probably many more people in the U.S. that have died from falling down in a slippery shower than have been killed by the handful of well publicized massacres....But, oh yeah, you can't protect youself with a slippery bath tub, so we probably won't hear "BAN ASSAULT BATHTUBS!!" any time soon.  It's funny how some deaths carry more weight than other deaths...isn't it?  

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin
Then why do you continue to pay for a police force and fire service then?
If you are really individualist you would forgoe those things and provide your own militia's and put out housefires by yourself. The truth is you like to think you are all these things yet when it gets out of your control you still expect the state to help you and that is hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Umm, excuse me...but don't confuse my admiration of a smaller limited government with someone who wants NO government in place....Just because someone doesn't want government in every facet of their lives doesn't mean they want absolute anarchy.  And no, when Hurricane Charley just came through and dropped two trees on my house, I didn't go running to my Big Brother for help....I prepared for the storm ahead of time like any SENSIBLE person.  And I will deal with the situation myself.

You have the right to make preperations providing those preperations are not to the detriment of those around you.

You are still proposing vigilante justice rather than a properly equipped police force who can ensure your safety. Whic surely is the pupose of a police force?

Quote

Quote
I'm not when it's in the hands of a law abiding citizen. It's the number of times that non-law abiding citizens have gotten weapons legally and massacred lots of people that you need to worry about.

Yeah, the anti-gunners use that argument all the time....But there are probably many more people in the U.S. that have died from falling down in a slippery shower than have been killed by the handful of well publicized massacres....But, oh yeah, you can't protect youself with a slippery bath tub, so we probably won't hear "BAN ASSAULT BATHTUBS!!" any time soon.  It's funny how some deaths carry more weight than other deaths...isn't it?  

Have you read Killas(1993) 'Gun ownership, suicide and homicide: an international perspective'?

It prove conclusively that in countries where it is easy to obtain weapons, then weapons will be misused over the the equivalent of a a country with no weapons.

That is to say if there is one homocide per thousand of the population where it is not possible to buy guns, the statistic for a country where it is easy to buy guns is likely to much higher than that, just using legally purchased weapons. You are more likely to be the victim of a homocide in a country where guns are easy to purchse than a victim in countries where the gun laws are tough:



Those countries with Tough Gun Laws "Norway",  "New Zealand", "Sweden", "Germany", "UK"
All significantly lower Gun homocides than guns sold.


Country, Gun ownership rate per 100k, Homicide rate per lm, Gun homicide rate per lm
USA, 85,000, 9.3, 6.40
Switzerland, 43,000, 1.5 , 1.40
New Zealand, 29,000, 2.6, 0.49
Canada, 24,000, 2.2 , 0.67
Australia, 19,000, 1.8, 0.36
Britain, 3,000 , 1.3, 0.14
Japan, 400, 1.2, 0.06
France, 23,000 , 4.9, 2.32


And again, Poor Gun control actually increases the homocide rate, and the U.S is one of the worst.

The gun homicide rate includes attempts for Switzerland and France. The French homicide rate also includes attempts.
France Based on a figures of 23% of households owning a gun
Based on figures in "A Review of Firearms Statistics and Regulations in Selected Countries". Department of Justice, Canada (1995).

and as I said about children being shot:

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
per 100,000


that's 3 times the rate of any other country in the US.
and more than the total in any country are suicide or accident  or either.

as for the bathtub incident what I found really scary was this:



A child is only 20 times more likely to die from a motor accident than they are a gunshot wound.

Now given children run out in front of cars and are involved in car accidents all the time, to know that every for every 20 that happens to another one is shot.
To know that fo every 4th child who scalds/burns himself to death on a fire hot bath tub, pot in the kitchen one is shot.
to know that for every 5th child who falls in a garden pond or river or pases out in the bathtup one is shot.
to know that every second child who suffocates himself by accident one is shot.

that is a scary statistic, and I'm glad I can bring my children up in a country where at least I can minismise the risk of that happening to them.

[BallisticGelatin]

Very pretty charts...But what are the population numbers for those European countries?  How do they compare to the U.S.?

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin
Very pretty charts...But what are the population numbers for those European countries?  How do they compare to the U.S.?

That is irrellevant as the figures are not per nation, but per sample of the population where the sample size is the same for all nations.



 

[BallisticGelatin]

Quote
Obviously you have neither an understanding of how statisics work, nor how the rest of the world works.

Thanks man...I like a little insult to go with my coffee in the morning. Oh let me bask in your ever-spewing fountain of knowledge.  Of course there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics....

[Connor]

If you think the graphs are misrepresentative, feel free to add evidence to the contrary and to state exactly why the US being a larger country would affect those figures (because I'm sure results from India and China would quickly dispell any issues there.)  

[BallisticGelatin]

How about the average 1 million crimes a year that are stopped by armed citizens in the U.S.?  That's from the FBI's own numbers...they suspect the the numbers are higher because not all of these 'incidents' are reported by the law abiding citizens.  If those crimes had been allowed to happen, and even 10 percent of them ended in a good guy's death, that's 100,000 lives saved by Americans being armed....

[UglyShoes]

well, getting on this one way late.

My input,  

I'm an american
I'm a rural american (raised anyways)
I have owned a guns since i was 11
I hunted till i was 18 (stopped when started college)

There is no reason for a gun ban, but much of what the Pro Gun people want is plan stupid and they twist reality.   I don't belive people should have automatic guns or hand guns since they serve no purpose, you don't hunt with them. Note, just cause you can hunt with a pistol doesn't really give much reason to.  If you want home defense the best tool is a shotgun. Hand guns are to easy to use in crimes.

Most all people i know are perfectly fine with hunting and target shooting. Most hunters arn't found of groups like the NRA, cause they make real gun owners (ones who have practical guns and just use them to hunt or target shoot and see no point for people owning machine guns).  The NRA was a good group, but got highjacked by extremeo's  sorta like the republican party got  hijacked by the christian fundementalist.

I think a lot of the US has some weird gun mentality. They just have a need for such things.  

What always bothers me, is people going to the constitutiona and saying "right to bear arms" gives them the right to have what ever, this is just plan false. What the consititution says has to be taken in the context of the time.  The founders were dealing with musketts, maybe a cannon.  Thats what we have the rights to, they could expect evolution to some level, basicly to your standard rifle. They couldn't have expected the extreme guns of today, if they knew about them, they would ahve phrased it differantly.  Also at the time the reason for such a thing was that everyone needed a gun for the most part to hunt with, and the fact we were a new country, there was fear the goverment could go south and without guns people would have no hope.  People have bent what the said so badly.  If you take it on face value it means i have every right to have a M1A1 tank that is fully operational and do what ever with it, it means I could build nukes in my garage and use them as I please, say for target practice in the back yard. But most everyone agrees that would be wrong, but they are fine with taking the crazyness to a level far beyond what the founders intended.

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin
How about the average 1 million crimes a year that are stopped by armed citizens in the U.S.?  That's from the FBI's own numbers...they suspect the the numbers are higher because not all of these 'incidents' are reported by the law abiding citizens.  If those crimes had been allowed to happen, and even 10 percent of them ended in a good guy's death, that's 100,000 lives saved by Americans being armed....

Again you show your lack of understanding of statistics, 1 million crimes does not equate to 1 million attempted homocides and thats the problem that the Pro-Gun Lobby always seem to make. you then take a random percentage of 10% and insinuate that this percentage is representative of the number of homocides that would have occured had the homeowner not been armed.

Thats why you need to look at the statistics above which show that for a million people involved in robberies, only 9 people would actually be murdered (in their lifetime, not just during the robbery) and 6 of them would be by gunshot.

Wheras by looking at other countries we can estimate the change brought in by gun control, it shows for that million people experiencing robberies 1-2 would be murdered in their lifetime and virtually no one dies of gun-shot wounds.
it would take time to implement in the US, as it has in other countries but at the end of the day the whole country would be a safer place, and you can use your guns to shoot at targets and animals rather than spending time worrying about the boogeyman.