07-12-2004 07:58									#91
	Put an end to popups!

.308 Ball 150 Grain 20... my neighbors aren't so safe,

	07-12-2004 11:40									#92
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger You don't think people walking around with big boards with nails in the middle of the night are going to be stopped by the police?

The police won't even be aware of the problem until the boards get sufficiently large, but then it will be too late!

	07-12-2004 13:41									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I wouldn't be surprised if statistics show that trigger-happy rednecks actually shoot their own family members by accident more often than they shoot burglars. Like teen daughters sneeking in late at night after visiting their boyfriends. So much for "protecting your family".

Anyone know the actual statistics?

	07-12-2004 14:59									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie I wouldn't be surprised if statistics show that trigger-happy rednecks actually shoot their own family members by accident more often than they shoot burglars. Like teen daughters sneeking in late at night after visiting their boyfriends. So much for "protecting your family". Anyone know the actual statistics?

Accidental shootings resulting in death are typically 2-300 in the U.S. while successful uses of a gun to defend oneself are estimated (most never reported) at about 500,000 per year, the vast majority of which are simply the potential victim showing their weapon. Lets assume that some of the successful self-defense acts were cases of mistaken identity (ie a guy seems to be following you and looks dodgy, you pull a pistol and he runs) and lets also assume that for every accidental shooting resulting in death there are 5 more which only result in a wounding. The numbers still seem to be greatly weighted toward the gun armed defender, and we have to remember that cases of mistaken identity make up a small minority of shooting accidents to begin with, despite the fact that they always draw a lot of media attention.

I think that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender where there is doubt. It is difficult to ascertain after the fact what an appropriate amount of force would have been in the situation. A lot of people armed with knives are no match for a lot of others who are unarmed. Society has to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who had no part in creating the dangerous situation in the first place (ie the homeowner) and no easy means to research the facts or the law as it might be applied to those facts while in danger. One does not think clearly in the middle of the night when awakened abruptly, and adrenalin and / or the presence of others who rely upon one for protection are likely to tend to make one refuse to take immediate chances in order to stave off potential legal liability down the road.

The homeowner / defender should also take some precautions for moral if not legal reasons. Those of us who live in fairly safe areas probably shouldn't keep loaded weapons laying around where we can get ahold of them before we've had a chance to wake up. I keep a .45 pistol in the next room with a loaded magazine in the same case. It gives me enough time to arm myself if there is a commotion downstairs while ensuring that I don't grab it and start blazing away as a result of a bad dream. I've armed myself several times to investigate people on my property or strange noises, but I've never had to show a weapon to anyone and have always taken enough time to get control of my breathing and make sure that I'm in control of my own faculties.

When one lives in a bad area one may have to make adjustments. I kept a loaded magazine and a weapon much nearer to hand when I lived in a smaller apartment in a much worse neighborhood after my apartment was broken into while I was asleep. I woke up unaware that anyone was in my apartment and assuming that my cat had simply knocked something over, only to surprise two burglars who took off running when they saw me. I felt lucky that they weren't more dangerous and realized how bad it would have been for me if they were, and took to keeping a gun much closer at hand and much closer to being ready to fire.

	07-12-2004 15:04									#95
	Support Apolyton

quote: All you need to do is to keep him at bay at a choke point. A burglar is most likely to flee when confronted in such a fashion. He has easier targets to pick.

Or, just shoot him, and then he can't bother you or anyone else again, ever.

	07-12-2004 15:34									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp They certainly are. They're also there to stop criminals (like Tony Martin) shooting other criminals.

A blast (not the shotgun variety) from the past:

Fad Gadget - Saturday Night Special


Contribution by: HumanGame on November 10, 2004


"Every man should have the right to own a gun
Every man should have the right to shoot someone

Film stars and farmers still forcing opinions
Like TV politicians playing cowboys and indians
Uncle Sam sleeps with his horse, keeps his brain in his hat
With his trigger-happy patter, he'll rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat

Ride into the sun - the damage is done

Every man should have the right to take a wife
Every man should have someone to share his life

Keep her at home with the kids and the cooking
So wholesome and clean when the neighbours are looking
She's mother and angel and courtesan too
Always hot in the bedroom, she's dressed just for you

Ride into the sun - the damage is done

Every man should have the right to raise a son
Every man should have the right to choose his young

A son is a credit to the family name
But a daughter can only bring worry and shame
You can solve all your problems with a small operation
Protecting your manhood by swift termination

Ride into the sun - the damage is done."

http://www.songmeanings.net/search....&query=Saturday

The late lamented Frank Tovey.

	07-12-2004 17:57									#97
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sikander edit..... I think that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender where there is doubt. It is difficult to ascertain after the fact what an appropriate amount of force would have been in the situation. A lot of people armed with knives are no match for a lot of others who are unarmed. Society has to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who had no part in creating the dangerous situation in the first place (ie the homeowner) edit.....

I'm not what most people would call a conservative or right wing individual, but this paragraph just about sums up my feelings on it. And why i feel that as the law stands in my country - i have to act outside those laws if ever the nasty situation of a someone breaking into my house while i or my family/friends are in ever happens.

As it stands in the uk our laws provide way too much protection to the criminal.
A case in point we can look at is that I caught and 'used minimum force' to apprehend a thief in a shop last week.
A lady in the shop had noticed he tried to snatch her mobile, so i reacted quick and stood in the way of the door blocking his escape.
He tried to get past me, so i had to wrestle him to a standstill, by which time another customer came to help out.
We called the police and had to wait 45mins with this guy trying to escape, threatening us and the staff etc etc.
The police came and because the lady whose phone he had tried to steal, didnt have 2hours, at that time, to spend in the police station filling out forms - the result was one free thief.
I could have been an arse and made some kind of assault charge i guess(not that i was actualy hurt) - but i really couldn't be arsed with all the rigmarol of going to the police station and all the subsequent bullshit of court appearences - time of work etc and maybe at the end i could, in theory, end up with a charge of assault against myself!!

See - it really is bollocks here in the uk.
Thats why the unlucky guy who tries to get in my house to cause harm/trouble, will never do it again. I'll sort the problem out myself as the laws here are so tied up in what i guess is liberal non-sense.

I am a liberal at heart in most aspect of my life, but i have no sympathy for a criminal who might end up killing one of my family or as with the recent cases of murders in homes in london, leave some nice kids without fathers, who probably were hoping that the law could provide better protection for them as they were dying at the hands of armed burglers.

So its a weird feeling that i find myself agreeing with people here who i would normaly be disagreeing with on many things

David Floyd - i completely understand where your coming from on this, i just would prefer to leave the guns out of the equation - i dont think we have exactly the same situation here in the uk for us to need guns.......yet

	07-12-2004 19:13									#98
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I still don't get what your problem with the law is though, child of Thor. The very link you posted refers to a recent case where a homeowner shot a burglar, the burglar was jailed for several years, the defender wasn't even arrested. What part of that makes you think that there is too much emphasis on the rights of criminals?

Your own example just sucks, because at the end of the day, if a victim of crime is unwilling to take the time to have charges filed against someone, no change in the law about the defense of property is going to change that.

	07-12-2004 19:57									#99
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I guess i just feel that at the momment, in the hypothetical instance of someone breaking into my home, there are two many grey area's, so having another look at this area, and maybe decideing some new rules to favour the defender; is a good thing.

To be exact, lets say in the heat of battle with some intruder(who should NOT be there), i cripple the guy for life or maybe kill him in the struggle, as it could just become his desire to kill me over mine to stay alive or protect others in my home.

In this case if i get the police involved i then have to rely on a court case to prove i only used 'reasonable force'. what happens if the dury members are having a bad day? Or just dont like the look of me? etc.
All i was doing is trying to protect my life and my families and our possesions from a thief, whom may have been behaving very aggressivly and be armed.

So i'm agreeing with the texan principle of once inside my home the intruder should lose all rights in the eyes of the law, and i should be within mine to do what i feel is neccesary at the time, without having to go through the scrutiny of a dury and a bunch of lawers who may just decide i'm the guilty party to some extent.

We are a long way from that here - and i guess the crims are laughing at us all? They have much less to lose than say those two recently murded men, at least it seems like that to many people.

Dont get me wrong - i'll attempt to talk the person down if i can, or deal with it diplomaticaly if possible(we dont quite have the arms race thing here as they do in the usa), so that would be my first option. But if that option is available and they dont just leave empty handed, then as far as im concerned the law will play no part in what happens next, as its stacked too much in the criminals favour, or atleast i run a risk of being found guilty because a robber decided to break into my house.
I'm not pre-pared to take that risk as i have quite a good life thanks

It just seems fair to me?

	07-12-2004 21:01									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Again, your own link shows that if you shoot an intruder you probably won't even get arrested. You seem rather paranoid, especially that bit, "If i get the poliec involved"- got a couple of attempted burglars rotting under your floorboards?

	07-12-2004 21:12									#101
	Tired of ads?

shhh!

I dont know the exact details of that particular incident, or if it is typical. I just know that many people feel afraid in thier own homes, afraid of being burgled and afraid of what happens if they get into this situation.
Clarifying the law is probably a good thing to do, and its just my opinion that it could do with some changing on the side of the home owner.
Of course what people less able to defend themselves can do is another problem(thinking of frail or old people etc).
Still the way i look at it, the more thieves under my floorboards(oops! ), the better off these more defencless people will be

	07-12-2004 21:12									#102
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Accidental shootings resulting in death are typically 2-300 in the U.S. while successful uses of a gun to defend oneself are estimated (most never reported) at about 500,000 per year, the vast majority of which are simply the potential victim showing their weapon. Lets assume that some of the successful self-defense acts were cases of mistaken identity (ie a guy seems to be following you and looks dodgy, you pull a pistol and he runs) and lets also assume that for every accidental shooting resulting in death there are 5 more which only result in a wounding. The numbers still seem to be greatly weighted toward the gun armed defender, and we have to remember that cases of mistaken identity make up a small minority of shooting accidents to begin with, despite the fact that they always draw a lot of media attention.

I wonder who came up with that immense estimate-Oh, I know, the NRA

The funny bit is that crime in those gun wielding areas continues to be much higher than in gun free parts like the Northeast. Heck, NYC with its draconian gun laws has seen a huge crime decline while gunhappy southern states see smaller declines, or slight increases in violent crime.

	07-12-2004 21:51									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

But you get those wacky redneck towns where it is law for every citizen to own a gun and they usually have crime rates of almost zero...

quote: Originally posted by child of Thor Still the way i look at it, the more thieves under my floorboards(oops! ), the better off these more defencless people will be

I must admit, I think David Floyd's posts have rubbed off against me somewhat, and any burglars that get their brains or their buttocks shot out will probably get less sympathy from me- what's one less burglar? (Oh no, I'm becoming more conservative, someone stop me)

	07-12-2004 22:18									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Tony Martin was a law abiding citizen against whom a violent crime was committed. His only "mistake" or "crime" was defending himself.

Well he wasn't a law-abiding citizen, no violent crime was committed against him, and at his trial it was established that he was not defending himself.

With the exception of those three errors, I can find no faults in those 22 words. Damn, you're getting good at this.

quote: Exactly! If the fire marshal knocks on my door, loudly announces he needs to investigate a fire hazard, I'll open the door and let him in. If he simply knocks my door down and charges in, then I'm justified in shooting him. But there is no need to "assess the risk" if someone - anyone - knocks down your door or breaks in through a window in the middle of the night - simply by virtue of having done so, the intruder is presenting a threat, and giving me all the justification I need to shoot him.

Whether it poses a threat depends on the circumstances, and those circumstances will be taken into consideration in deciding whether it was valid self-defence. Now that sounds fair enough to me, so I see no need to give carte blanche to would-be executioners with illegally-owned weapons.

	07-12-2004 23:17									#105
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Well he wasn't a law-abiding citizen, no violent crime was committed against him, and at his trial it was established that he was not defending himself.

1)OK, he owned an illegal shotgun, which ultimately he used for self defense. If you must prosecute him, prosecute him primarily for having the illegal weapon, not the self defense.

2)Burglary is, or at least has the potential to be, a violent crime.

3)Shooting a burglar is by definition self defense.

quote: Whether it poses a threat depends on the circumstances, and those circumstances will be taken into consideration in deciding whether it was valid self-defence.

If someone knocks down my door or window, and I have reasonable reason to think they are a burglar (it's the middle of the night, for example), then there is no need to consider the circumstances - that is ALWAYS valid self defense.

	08-12-2004 00:31									#106
	Inflate your Upload Space

The way I see it, intruders or attackers negate their right not to have you violate their rights as soon as they attack you, which is why I think killing intruders, or killing ones attackers if assaulted, is acceptable in the context of a legal system and society.

This only works in the situation itself, hot blood as it were. I am completely against vigilantism and revenge.

	08-12-2004 00:47									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd 3)Shooting a burglar is by definition self defense.

Not in most of the civlized world- the person must pose a danger- tresspassing on your property with the aim of robbing you by itself is NOT a threat to your person. If you come down and the person sees you and advances on your, or takes out a possible weapon, perhaps. If they turn and run, then obviously they were not a threat and killing them is not self-defense. Self defense applies to the defense of your self (body, being), NOT to the defense of your property alone.

quote: If someone knocks down my door or window, and I have reasonable reason to think they are a burglar (it's the middle of the night, for example), then there is no need to consider the circumstances - that is ALWAYS valid self defense.

Anyone so brazen as to do this is not likely to come just to rob, that is true- but if they break in, that is a difference.

	08-12-2004 01:16									#108
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd 3)Shooting a burglar is by definition self defense.

Only in "David Floyd's Big Book of Really Weird Definitions That Have Only The Vaguest Resemblance To Definitions Used By The Sane".

I could start posting examples of situations in which that "definition" would be a load of old cobblers- but if I started, I'm not sure I'd be able to stop.

	08-12-2004 04:59									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Describing the Tony Martin case as "criminals shooting other criminals" is misleading, as it implies that Tony Martin was a criminal or doing something wrong prior to being burglarized. AFAIK, he was not. He only became a criminal when he defended himself.

Excuse me, but if I recall correctly the rest of the story was that the burglar had already exited the house and was running away when Mr. Martin shot him.

	08-12-2004 08:51									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

Gepap,

quote: Not in most of the civlized world- the person must pose a danger- tresspassing on your property with the aim of robbing you by itself is NOT a threat to your person. If you come down and the person sees you and advances on your, or takes out a possible weapon, perhaps. If they turn and run, then obviously they were not a threat and killing them is not self-defense. Self defense applies to the defense of your self (body, being), NOT to the defense of your property alone.

And I disagree. If someone is in your house, because they broke in, that by itself constitutes a serious danger to your person, which justifies lethal force.

Laz,

quote: I could start posting examples of situations in which that "definition" would be a load of old cobblers- but if I started, I'm not sure I'd be able to stop.

OK, fine. Why don't you post an example where a burglar doesn't constitute a lethal threat to me.

Now, remember, I don't have complete information if I'm being burglarized, and it's only reasonable for me to assume that someone who breaks into my house is going to kill or assault me.

DS,

quote: Excuse me, but if I recall correctly the rest of the story was that the burglar had already exited the house and was running away when Mr. Martin shot him.

Maybe, but that should be legal, too.

Seriously, I don't see why everyone has so much sympathy for these criminals. People who commit burglary and other violent or potentially violent crimes are pieces of ****, no questions asked. Why do you care if someone they are in the process of victimizing kills them in self defense? Why is that such a problem for you people? Really, explain it to me, because I don't get it.

	08-12-2004 08:52									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The way I see it, intruders or attackers negate their right not to have you violate their rights as soon as they attack you, which is why I think killing intruders, or killing ones attackers if assaulted, is acceptable in the context of a legal system and society.

Damn right. Nice to see that some people outside of the US (well, Texas) are sane

	08-12-2004 08:55									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: OK, fine. Why don't you post an example where a burglar doesn't constitute a lethal threat to me. Now, remember, I don't have complete information if I'm being burglarized, and it's only reasonable for me to assume that someone who breaks into my house is going to kill or assault me.

It's only reasonable to assume that the guy that gave me a funny look is going to kill or assault me. Surely I ought to shoot his ass down pre-emptively. Self-defense.

	08-12-2004 08:58									#113
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Seriously, I don't see why everyone has so much sympathy for these criminals. People who commit burglary and other violent or potentially violent crimes

"Potentially violent?" What the hell does that mean? What makes an action "potentially violent?"

quote: Why do you care if someone they are in the process of victimizing kills them in self defense? Why is that such a problem for you people? Really, explain it to me, because I don't get it.

Because killing people is wrong.

	08-12-2004 08:59									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ramo, you're more intelligent than that. You're intentionally missing the point and making an irrelevant example, and I know you know it.

Just in case, there is an obvious difference between a "funny look" and someone violently breaking into your residence with the intent to rob you.

	08-12-2004 09:01									#115
	Tired of ads?

quote: "Potentially violent?" What the hell does that mean? What makes an action "potentially violent?"

It means that just because 100% of burglars will not necessarily also assault or kill you, there is a reasonable assumption that can be made that someone who breaks into your house will indeed violently assault you.

quote: Because killing people is wrong.

Not in self defense.

	08-12-2004 09:01									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It's not an irrelevent example. You're assuming that anyone who breaks into your house is violent, just like my hypothetical is assuming that anyone who looks at me funny is violent. I'm calling bullshit on your assumption.

	08-12-2004 09:04									#117
	Tired of ads?

quote: It means that just because 100% of burglars will not necessarily also assault or kill you, there is a reasonable assumption that can be made that someone who breaks into your house will indeed violently assault you.

No, it's not reasonable. It's a paranoid assumption.

	08-12-2004 09:08									#118
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: It's not an irrelevent example. You're assuming that anyone who breaks into your house is violent, just like my hypothetical is assuming that anyone who looks at me funny is violent. I'm calling bullshit on your assumption.

Call all the bullshit you want, but breaking into a house is an inherently violent act.

quote: No, it's not reasonable. It's a paranoid assumption.

It's paranoid to assume that one who will engage in certain violent activities won't engage in others?

	08-12-2004 09:11									#119
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There's a huge difference between stealing and hurting someone. Far more people would do the former than the latter. Yes, it is paranoid to assume that someone who breaks into your home will assault, rape, kill, etc. the people in your home

	08-12-2004 09:12									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Or, just shoot him, and then he can't bother you or anyone else again, ever.

It appears that your intention is not defense but murder.