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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US. Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens? An armed citizen asleep in his bed does not deter someone from stealing his car from across the street. This much is obvious. It *does*, on the other hand, deter a criminal from trying to carjack him, which carries with it a much higher risk of a non-criminal getting hurt or killed. It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work, which I'd think that most people are in favor of. -jake |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
From: Jim Yanik
Date: 4/22/2004 12:48 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: (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 I chose the 9 iron as an example, 9 irons being considered by most people as non lethal weapons. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Jim Doyle"
"B2431" wrote in message ... 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. Well, you shouldn't be victimised at all, clearly. Once that burglar has entered your property he should forego any right to sue you for injuries whether they be from tripping over your dog or directly inflicted by you wielding a 9-iron. So long as you've used a sufficient amount of force to repel him without exceeding a justifiable limit, you should not be in fear of a long, expensive and drawn-out lawsuit. That's a nice theory, but in this country it's not a fact. However, surely by shooting him you're overstepping the reasonable force criteria in at least some instances - and are therefore making yourself liable for further upset as he/his relatives squeeze every last penny out of you. 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. Were the law to change, restricting the rights of burglars to sue for non-lethal methods you may use to repel them - would you still consider a gun? Yes, if required. Many years ago a 10 year old boy broke into my house and stole some of my edged weapons. Had I been home at the time I would NOT have drawn a weapon on him. I would have had one handy in case he had an older accomplice. I used to have a neighbour with alzheimers. He sometimes would enter my house in the afternoon. I never reached for a weapon. I'm thinking, should this be the reason that a person would resort to lethal force upon an intruder, then the courts are severely in the wrong to force the public to this degree of protection. That's surely the fundamental issue for all but the most trigger-happy homeowners - and I can see the justification for it, even if I'm not to happy with the possible consequences. Jim Doyle Having said all this all citizens have to use common sense all the time. If you leave money in plain sight in an unlocked car the bad guys have no right to take it, but you did a stupid thing. Same thing with your home. You shouldn't HAVE to lock your house, but you are a fool if you don't. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.
No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For Disease Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with anonymous strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice. I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That statement was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen, a criminal can legally carry a weapon. Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot legally own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At least not in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can *anywhere.* You are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find seriously offensive. It's the flagrant willingness to kill, No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to have the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself out of it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement. coupled with such a low regard for the gravity of murder, that really gets me. Prejudice again, and this one angers me. If I defend myself with lethal force, it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no desire to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the violent intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at night. I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me any favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun kul-chore, but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE LAW. This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why would any reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men? What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain? What's happened to your rates of violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on your island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold. Why? Because the lawless took heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves? No... no, that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's because you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally owned weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a symptom. The disease rages merrily onwards. despit our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde England. Controversial. What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so counterintuitive to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand. You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your prejudice. So I'll stop. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote: From: Kerryn Offord B2431 wrote: SNIP 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). I don't know if you have any experience with guns, but I know how long it takes to unlock my ammo locker and my gun safe. I also know how long it takes to load any of my guns. By the time I have done it the bad guy is going to have had plenty of time to do what he wants. Do you seriously expect the bad guy to stand there and wait until you have armed yourself? I was talking about the NZ situation re getting the weapon from a secured gun safe (although I think you can have weapons on the wall as long as they have a trigger lock...) As for getting a gun from a cabinet..., the one case I can think of where a householder used a legally owned handgun to kill an intruder, did just that.. And the rules for securing handguns in NZ are pretty strict. As for the bag guy... As soon as he (most of them are he) to have done a runner as soon as they think they have woken someone... They really don't like any noise and are liable to run at the first sound.... 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.... It shouldn't matter at all where a weapon is stored. Premeditation implies I intended to harm or kill that specific bad guy. It also implies I went out of my way to do it. Self defense by whatever means is NOT premeditated murder. Nope the premeditation implies you intended to use maybe excessive force, if you grab a golf club from a bag (and you play golf)... then its an spur of the moment action. Premeditated doesn't need a specific victim/ target, otherwise those guys convicted in that sniper case couldn't be convicted of murder (the targets were random) SNIP 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. You may not be law suit crazy in NZ, but it's unbeliebably rampant here in the U.S. Have you heard about the grandmother who won a law suit for burning herself with coffee she had just bought from MacDonald's? She was the passenger in that car which was stopped at the time of the incident. There are criminals who sue and win for injuries incurred during the commision of their crimes. Doctors get sued because a baby is not born perfect. Feel free to research this. You may get quite a few laughs. Re the McDs coffee... it does sound extreme, until you find that McDs coffee was being served much hotter than anybody else was, and that they had been warned about serving it so hot (especially at a drive in window). |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message ... Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG. No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For Disease Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with anonymous strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice. I have done exactly that and now have a much better appreciation of the situation - yet this has not changed my views one bit... wonder why? I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That statement was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen, a criminal can legally carry a weapon. Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot legally own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At least not in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can *anywhere.* You can be as patronising as you wish. In response to your reply above - we are not born with 'criminal'/'law abiding citizen' emblazoned on our foreheads, no. So beyond having a criminal record, what is there to stop the 'soon-to-be' crims? With all the will in the world, this background security checking system cannot be water tight. You are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find seriously offensive. No offence intended. As far as my prejudices extend, no - I'm not prepared to accept that I've watched too many US cop dramas and have this picture painted in my head that is so far from the truth. Prejudiced I may be, but these are borne of a number of posts made within the last 48 hours and the genuine (I believe them to be) feelings that the authors have expressed. It's the flagrant willingness to kill, No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to have the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself out of it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement. coupled with such a low regard for the gravity of murder, that really gets me. Were these the two statements to which you took offence? I was not intending to label you personally as the type of chap who would readily murder a man for the possession of material goods - so calm down dear. A number of posts to this ng alone, within the last 48 hours, have demonstrated - on both counts - that this is the case. - 'I am prepared to murder someone if the situation is right (or wrong) - and I'm not too fussed of the outcome.' That's paraphrasing, granted, but I'd argue is the crux of many a statement made within this thread. I could list them should you like. Prejudice again, and this one angers me. Rubbish. If I defend myself with lethal force, it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no desire to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the violent intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at night. I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me any favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun kul-chore, but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE LAW. This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why would any reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men? Understand this - I can see why you and the other posters here own a weapon. Really, I do. We have, however, established that a criminal within the UK presents a very different - but real nonetheless - danger. ****ty people do exist within the UK - that I'll admit to. The issues with which I am having trouble trying to comprehend is this: Firstly (and most importantly): Some - not all, but some - of you are prepared to kill a man over some petty crimes - things that can be such an insignificant event in the grand scheme of life. Furthermore - they believe it's doing the public a great service, and do not wish to be accountable for murder, in fact they can't even see a reason for being accountable. Secondly: Of those of you not falling into the above category, you are prepared to sit back and just accept that your neighbour (above) has a gun and is willing to use it with little regard for the consequences. You are defending that person's right to own a weapon and ultimately empowering him with deadly force. Can you not see the conundrum? What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain? Higher than the US. What about the US domestic/non-domestic burglaries compared to the UK? 3-year averaged violent crime rates? Property crime (as it is known in the US)? It's not such a clear distinction between the two countries as you would seemingly like. What's happened to your rates of violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on your island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold. Granted, the rates have increased whereas the US has remained at a fairly steady state, if not decline. A large factor in the increase of violent/gun related crime within the UK has been due to the steady leak of arms from the Baltic states into the UK in the late 90's. The annual death rate remains at a little above a score - an increase as you suggest, but twenty is nothing compared to ten thousand within the US. I'll take 23 in 60,000,000 over 10,000 in 250,000,000 any day. Why? Because the lawless took heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves? No... no, that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's because you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally owned weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a symptom. The disease rages merrily onwards. The banning of handguns within the UK was not brought about by how you suggest - to get the UK out of a rough demographic and economic patch. It was carried though on a wave of public pressure after the murder of a primary school class and their teacher in Dunblane. The UK public questioned the need for its citizens to have ready access to firearms - and the country decided, er... nope. Are you familiar with the events at Dunblane? despit our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde England. Controversial. What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so counterintuitive to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand. Throw away comment that you were not intended to kick-off over. Besides, the facts aren't stacked in your favour as much as you would like to suggest. You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your prejudice. So I'll stop. Pettiness prevails. Again with this prejudice - pots and kettles. I'm ready to accept - and challenge - my prejudices. BTW, not having been a Usenet poster since the dawn of time - I still think it inappropriate to edit a post to which you are replying - or at least not include the full text as it was intended - it would seem to indicate an unwillingness to address the points of the original post. Jim Doyle |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote: SNIP Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so. Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes. SNIP This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive). If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first confronted him.... It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes. Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest bit of property). Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different). |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Stranahan wrote: SNIP I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That statement was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen, a criminal can legally carry a weapon. Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot legally own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At least not in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can *anywhere.* You are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find seriously offensive. This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as a non felon. It's the flagrant willingness to kill, No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to have the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself out of it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement. No, its a willingness to kill. I can defend myself in my house without having a gun. Using a gun for self defence implies you are prepared to use it. If you are prepared to use a firearm, then you are prepared to kill... you can't guarantee that a shot will not kill... SNIP |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
(B2431) wrote in
: From: "Jim Doyle" "B2431" wrote in message ... 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. Well, you shouldn't be victimised at all, clearly. Once that burglar has entered your property he should forego any right to sue you for injuries whether they be from tripping over your dog or directly inflicted by you wielding a 9-iron. So long as you've used a sufficient amount of force to repel him without exceeding a justifiable limit, you should not be in fear of a long, expensive and drawn-out lawsuit. That's a nice theory, but in this country it's not a fact. Strange how some folks think that one must only respond to a criminal with force no greater than what the criminal displays("reasonable force"). Hobbling the ODC while the criminal is under no such restraint. Or that they can discern the INTENT of a criminal,and that it will not change for the worse in the course of a confrontation. As if an elderly,weak,or handicapped person could fight off a healthy,young,strong man without great risk to themselves.Some burglars might (and have)decide the victim is weak enough to ignore or even assault.A BAD time to have to go find a better weapon. However, surely by shooting him you're overstepping the reasonable force criteria in at least some instances - and are therefore making yourself liable for further upset as he/his relatives squeeze every last penny out of you. 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. Were the law to change, restricting the rights of burglars to sue for non-lethal methods you may use to repel them - would you still consider a gun? Yes, if required. Many years ago a 10 year old boy broke into my house and stole some of my edged weapons. Had I been home at the time I would NOT have drawn a weapon on him. I would have had one handy in case he had an older accomplice. I used to have a neighbour with alzheimers. He sometimes would enter my house in the afternoon. I never reached for a weapon. Well,one should always identify their target before shooting. I'm thinking, should this be the reason that a person would resort to lethal force upon an intruder, then the courts are severely in the wrong to force the public to this degree of protection. That's surely the fundamental issue for all but the most trigger-happy homeowners - and I can see the justification for it, even if I'm not to happy with the possible consequences. Jim Doyle Having said all this all citizens have to use common sense all the time. If you leave money in plain sight in an unlocked car the bad guys have no right to take it, but you did a stupid thing. Same thing with your home. You shouldn't HAVE to lock your house, but you are a fool if you don't. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
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 |