You see - that is where the gun nuts make a big mistake - as anti-gun as I am I do NOT want to "take your guns" what I do want to see is a reduction in your gun violence rate and THAT is going to be achieved more by changing the culture than removing the guns
Question: Why all the focus on just gun violence? Our overall violent crime rate has been plummeting over the last decade, and is lowest it has ever been. At the same time, gun ownership and CHLs are at an all time high. At the very least, this indicates that 'more guns' does not equate to 'more violent crime'. It is a correlation that cannot be ignored if reducing violent crime is the goal.
More guns but in fewer hands But mostly this is about culture - a culture where the gun is seen as a solution and I do NOT want that culture spread outside America so I fight back on threads like these hopefully demonstrating reality versus myth fuelled NRA slogans
LOL, good points, and I largely agree with you. But if I may be allowed one gentle correction - the United States is demonstrably more gun happy than any other developed western nation. Like 31,000 + gun deaths (all causes) per year as against roughly 40 in the UK. I know, I know! People will claim they are mostly suicides and gang related murders, but they are nevertheless gun related deaths. And I suspect Bowerbird may be referring to posts which say something like "Somebody enters my home uninvited - I regard it as an invasion, and he is dead." I am paraphrasing, but I have seen many posts to that effect on these pages, and it does give the wrong impression of US society as a whole.
It was murder plain and simple, and neither the police or DA bought his story, heck the monster recorded the murders and practiced what he was going to say to the 911 operator. That said, if I am sitting in my livingroom and someone enters my home illegally I will shoot and they would die, that is a risk anyone takes breaking and entering other peoples homes, they are not there for good reasons and I for one would not sit there and question what they are planning to do, steal, rape or murder I will simple react as many would I would defend my home, family and self. The reality I do not really worry all that much that such a scenerio will come about, I have two dogs that let stranges know they are intruding on their property and they take it personal unless I tell them to stand down. That is true with many home owners out in the rural area I live in, most theives do not want to deal with dogs and the possibility of being bitten or possibly killed by dogs, they will simply move on to the home down the road without dogs. Yes dogs and locked gates are not assurance that someone will not attempt to do evil, but they make it much more difficult, and that is why I suggest people own them, even a small dog can at least give you warning.
It is why many own them, they can be dangerous to mess with, even a small dog can give a nasty bite. Out where I live almost everyone has a dog or two or three and own guns which they fire on a regular basis, there is good reason for that, the average time for the Sheriff to respond to a call is around 20 minutes, way too long for anyone to feel comfortable about being unarmed and exposed.
agreed. There is one other reason I own a gun. My dog might go off on somebody. I may need to be able to protect my guests and family. It has never happened, but to prepare for the worse case scenario.......
I really do not worry about the dogs, they are well mannered and obey my commands, but I guess it could happen, thing is if it did they will probably deserve what they get. But I agree, best to be responsible owner with pets that could be dangerous to others and any tools one may own such as, chainsaws, hand and table saws, drills, tractors, mowers, edgers, and guns.
not a single person unless you count that deputy sherrif and his baton for not hopping up fast enough from a dead sleep and being surprised to be awakened with a grown man screaming obscenities in my face. You get that I was agreeing with you right? Dial it back a bit dude.
Bolding mine: So you would be perfectly fine with someone invading your home? You wouldn't do anything? I think that gives an impression of UK/australian society as a whole. And I don't like it. How bout this: You guys stay over there and keep self defense illegal, and we'll stay over and be able to defend ourselves. Ok?
This thread is about castle doctrine. The costs that you are referring to are caused by gang activity for the most part. Criminals and gangs, and drug activity are responsible for approx. 80% of all shootings in Chicago and this seems to be a typical number for the rest of the country. "A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, its 75%. In Milwaukee its 77% percent. In New Orleans, its 64%. In Baltimore, its 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related." http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dg...snt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/
Every cloud has a silver lining; guns give employment to the medical, insurance and governmental sectors. Banning them would throw thousands out of work.
Do you know what a strawman, in the rhetorical sense, or what we call an Aunt Sally in the UK, is? It is an informal fallacy based upon the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.- an adversarial polemic which creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition. Up to this point, I had not given my position on so dramatic an event of someone 'invading my home' (whatever that means precisely). If by 'invading' you mean to imply breaking, entering, and burgling - then no, I would not be perfectly fine with those circumstances, and I cannot think of many people who would be. What I would do if I came down the stairs at the dead of night, and found someone pocketing portable valuables, is, depending upon the circumstances, first call 999, and then tell him to put them back and clear off, as the police are on their way. I would not block his escape route, as he might be carrying a knife or, more likely, a jemmy. I do not have access to a gun, and the probability of his being armed is so low as to be negligible. It would not enter my head to injure or kill him, even if I had the capability. The legal penalty for break and enter in my society is a custodial sentence if proven, not the death penalty by means of summary execution. You have not made clear your exact impression of UK/Australian society, but I am fairly confident that no Brit or Aussie is going to spend too many sleepless nights worrying over your opinion of our respective societies. And I have visited your fair land, and found Americans to be a remarkably pleasant and generous people, but I assure you that there is little danger of my planning to live there - so you are quite safe from pernicious British or Australian influence. But perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself a little more with English Common Law (upon which your own legal system is based) and what it says about self defence, before you pontificate further about these matters. The following case law example neatly summarises the principles involved. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/ It would take someone with no comprehension whatsoever of the language to interpret the above as deeming self defence illegal. You appear to be adequately skilled in the use of English, so I cannot understand how you would arrive at that conclusion. Would you care to elucidate?
Yes I was talking about burglury of an occupied residence or "home invasion" as it is called here. And you have stated that you would call the police and wait because that's what your society does. You've also intimated how you don't give a fig for my opinion of your society. News flash sherlock: I don't give a fig about your opinion of MY society and in MY society breaking into someone's home is ASKING to be SHOT. If you don't want to put yourself at that risk its real simple to avoid: Don't break into people's homes. If you get shot burgling a residence I have exactly zero sympathy for you. You took your life in your hands when you invaded someone's home. Period. My impression, since you asked, is that your society is one of serfdom where only your betters are allowed to be armed themselves and you must depend upon the competency of police (dubious) as well as their near immediate presence when you need them (laughable as a concept) as well as upon the good will of criminals. ME? I say (*)(*)(*)(*) that, you can keep it. You don't care? Well neither do I. As to self defense being illegal: if you have a weapon in easy access for just such an occasion and use it, then YOU get charged. This is true for ANY weapon, not just guns. What that means is that unless you're bruce (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lee, able to beat the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of someone with a pinky finger, or jason bourne able to beat up a guy with a rolled up magazine, you're pretty much SOL. If you can't have the tools to defend yourself in a way you can easily access them, then self defense might as well be illegal. If you have to retreat in your own home: Same. Yall's definition of what is "reasonable" in your law is not anywhere close to what my own definition of "reasonable " is.
I thought you might be. We are a little less histrionic on this side of the pond, so we call it 'burglary', or 'break and enter'. LOL, Aunt Sally rides again! What I wrote was Which does not connote hiding in the bathroom until the police arrive. I am not an old lady, I am a 19 year old man in reasonable physical shape, and I am confident I can handle a single unarmed burglar who is getting stroppy. It is also relevant to note that a burglar thus interrupted will not be armed in my society, so the potential danger is of a different order. I gathered that from your earlier response, but it was not I who opened the bidding with the statement "I think that gives an impression of UK/australian society as a whole. And I don't like it." You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, but it is not unreasonable to assume that the roughly 85 million people who comprise the combined British/Australian society are unlikely to be concerned about one, not particularly well-informed, American's opinion of their respective societies. Perhaps the reason you appear confused about the British legal concept of self defence is because your own concept of self defence is not clearly defined. This may be of some assistance. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1909 If you are attacked and you, or someone in your care, is in personal danger, British law allows you to use whatever force (including lethal force) is necessary, but not unreasonably, the force has to be commensurate with the threat. And defence of property is not synonymous with self defence.
From Business Insider where you got your graph. Your graph looks like the one that comes out of the gun control Brady campaign. Self-Reported Gun Ownership In U.S. Is Highest Since 1993 One thing is certain, you will only get this information by taking a poll and there are many gun owners that just don't want anyone to know they own a gun so the numbers could be low.
The next time someone breaks into my house, I'll be sure to ask him how he is armed for the occasion before I shoot him.
Why is it histrionic? Do you know the definitions of both words? Do they somehow conflict with the term as understood? Explain. You're right aunt sally IS riding, but she's sitting in your (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) seat. I didn't say you'd hide in the bathroom. I said "And you have stated that you would call the police and wait because that's what your society does." Which IS what you'd said you'd do. You'd call the cops, inform the criminal and then.... wait. Quote yourself where you said you would eject the criminal from your home or some such. You'll notice I didn't say "and then you'll cower in the bathroom". You know what's really funny? Pots calling the kettle a racial epithet. (if you can't tell that's a metaphor) As to your response: Why would the burgler not be armed? Because the law says he should not be? Didn't the law say he shouldn't be breaking into your home and stealing your (*)(*)(*)(*)? Why CAN"T he have a kitchen knife? Or a chair leg with nails through it? Or a 3d printed or otherwise machined pistol (you can make an ak out of a shovel blade with a hammer and a drill press. A child could do it.)? Are you honestly telling me that criminals in the UK are NEVER armed? As if it is some form of impossibility that violates the laws of physics because yall made a LAW!? Holy (*)(*)(*)(*) man! Teach me this wonderous magick that alters the very fabric of reality by fiat! And it was not I who opened the bidding either if you can be bothered to go back and look. I was parroting the words of another. If you don't believe me check it for yourself. The truth shall set you free. As to the 85million of you: Who said I was under that impression? You think anyone over here cares what yall think? Shall I pull out our population penis so that we can compare sizes? FFS man this is a thread about american law! Of course I have an opinion, and since its my country I believe I've got a bit more weight in that area than you do. Would you disagree with this point? Self defense is reasonable force. Reasonable force applies to property. In the US you can shoot someone who has stolen something who refuses to comply with the typical "stop where you are and wait for the police or I will shoot you". Under our laws, that is perfectly legal. So the disconnect is that our definition is different than yours. You don't have to live here: why do you care? Go enjoy your totally violence free society why don't you? O that's because you don't have one and in fact have a higher rate of violent crime over there? oops. Good thing castle law isn't british but american law. < also a good thing the thread is about castle law huh?
Texan my friend don't you know? Leo2 here has a strange and arcane magicks that make it physically impossible for criminals to be armed! We're all saved! Now why they don't apply this magick to things like theft and intentional homicide is not for us to question. Thou shalt not question the master magus is the first rule of these strange powers I'm reliably informed.
Reality, I like all your post so far, but Ithink you are mistaken when you said in the US you can shoot someone forstealing something and they don't comply with the cammand, "stop or I'll shoot." I think that's true in Texas, I'm not sure. What I do knowforsure is that you cannot shoot someone over property here in Arizona (where I live now) and definately not in California (where I grew up). Out here in AZ they strongly discourage you from giving warnings or commands before firing, there are many instances where that warning gave the bad guy enough time to shoot you first. Also, in AZ, it is illegal to fire a warning shot due to a law that was passed after a little girl was killed by celebratory gunfire raining down on her, so now discharges of firearms within city limits unless for self defense is illegal, just a side note.
It varies from State to State. In Indiana the Castle Doctrine allows you to defend yourself, your home, and your curtilage (The enclosed space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling-house.) from harm.
Just a quick point - an Aunt Sally is not the same device as rhetorical hyperbole, such as 'hiding in the bathroom'. And yes I do know the definitions of 'histrionic' - overly dramatic being one. While I readily concede this thread is about the Castle Doctrine, which is a tenet of law in some American states, the discussion moved on to the laws of the UK when you wrote - In respect of which, I was attempting to explain the situation in the UK vis a vis burglars, going armed, and what is deemed reasonable force by our legal system. I also believe that such statutes as the Defence of Habitation Law can be discussed as concepts of justice, outside geographical borders, which I understand to be the intention of the OP. In view of which, it is not unreasonable to compare the approaches to the issue by different societies. In the UK, the probability of a burglar being armed is indicated by the incidence recorded - there is a very low probability of his carrying a knife, and a minuscule probability his being armed with a gun. There are several reasons for this - the principal one being that hand guns are very difficult to obtain in our society, and petty criminals are not inclined to go to the bother, and considerable expense of obtaining an illegal pistol. There are no local gun shops or gun shows where one may buy one, and personal sales of prohibited weapons are obviously not allowed. In addition to which, one may not simply break into premises and steal a hand gun - because almost no private residence contains one. The other pressing reason not to go armed (with either a gun or a knife) is the somewhat dim view the courts take of such behaviour. Common break and enter can carry a sentence of a few months, whereas you can go to gaol for life for some varieties of armed robbery. I am aware that the laws that obtain on either side of the pond may differ dramatically in some instances, but I am attempting to discuss these things as matters of principle, not moral judgments. Of course I too can engage in aggressive invective, and it might even be fun, but I do not see that furthering understanding for either of us. If you wish to continue a mutually respectful but informative discussion, I should be delighted to learn more of your society from you. However, if that is not the case, then I think I should thank you for your time and bid you a good day.
While most people won't kill somebody over property, it is legal in some places. This only applies when they are stealing your property (at night) and you believe that you cannot get it back. Deadly force is justified anytime when dealing with rape, arson or aggravated robbery. Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
