NewBonk

While this story is amusing, I'm afraid it paints an untrue picture of those in law-enforcement. It's not as though they were all at doughnut shop annoyed that someone called in report their shed was being broken into. It's that the police are usually extremely limited in their resources and are forced to prioritize calls.

For example, let's say every working police officer was already on a call - dealing with medicals, assault reports, domestic disputes, vehicle accidents, runaways, burglaries, business alarms, DUIs and the list could go on. Now you call up and say you shot somebody, even though you didn't. You just ripped police services away from your fellow citizens - some who were in worse situations than you - how does that make you feel?

Not to threadjack, I know this isn't about the police specifically. I'm also not saying the police are perfect. But let's not blame the police for doing the best they can with limited resources.

Ustwo

First the crime rates in the US tend to be LOWER than European ones right now.

Secondly, as a whilte male I have a lower chance of being murdred in the US than a white male in Europe.

Third most murders in the US are gang-gang related.

Fourth, I'm sure you don't know this but the US has areas of almost complete gun control and areas where anyone can carry a concealed weapons. Guess which areas in the US have the most murders and highest crime?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

stevie667

Because of a bumper sticker?

Just because, thankfully, the vast majority of our populance don't have guns doesn't mean that we can't seriously mame an intruder.

I still don't get why just about everyone responding to this thread seems to think that because our government has said to give over our valubles or lock ourselves away that every single person will do that. Of course there will be people who will do that, and the same everywhere else in the world. I know people here who would a gun (legal or otherwise) to defend their homes and family.
Like i said before, our government has started procedures to make it perfectly legal for a homeowner to defend themselves with force, even if it does mean killing the intruder.


Also worth mentioning is that using the Tony Martin case (where a he shot a 16 year old intruder dead) is a highly irregular case, and should not be used as context on British law, customs or judicial practices because of the fact it is so rare, and overly played in the media.

Dostoevsky

I would like to set the record straight for those who don't believe that the private ownership of firearms serves as a deterrent to violent crime. It has already been posted on this thread that violent crime in the UK, where citizens have been stripped by their government of the right to protect their lives, is on the rise. I would like to share some recent data that I found with a quick google search on the effect concealed carry of firearms by private citizens has on violent crime.

" 31 States now have laws allowing individuals to carry concealed handguns. In the most careful scientific study of such laws yet done, which will be published in the Journal of Law and Economics in January, John Lott finds that concealed-carry laws deter violent crimes and produce no increase in accidental deaths. In an advance look at his findings, he argued at this forum that if more states had such laws, thousands of murders could be prevented."
From: http://www.cato.org/realaudio/audiopages/gunlaws.html

If you don't believe what I just posted, please go and have a look for yourself. The man who wrote this is a professor of law at the University of Chicago. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he's not a right winger. Doesn't it make sense? If you were a criminal, wouldn't you be more likely to burglarize, rob, mug, and rape in areas where you know people don't have guns? The higher the prevalence of concealed carry and gun ownership, the lower the crime rate will be for a simple reason...Criminals don't want to get shot to death any more than you and I do.

When I am in America, I carry my .45 glock or my .357 taurus almost everywhere I go. It's not because I think I'm tough or because I want to shoot someone, it's because I love my life and refuse to be a victim. It's like the old saying goes, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it." I feel like I am in control of my own life and destiny and I'm not going to be a victim. It's called having and internal locus of control.

I feel very strongly about this and even honest left wingers are beginning to admit that private gun ownership serves as a deterrent to crime.

Final though: Who is Jon Gault?

FL8ME

I carry my .45 glock or my .357 taurus almost everywhere I go

Do you really need that much stopping power to keep yourself from being a victim?

nowthen

FL8ME, i agree. much better to shoot somebody with a soft cuddly .22, rather than a big nasty .45....

__________________

"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them."

George Bernard Shaw

FL8ME

<b>nowthen</b>

Clearly, you missed the point of my post. Shooting someone with a .22 certainly won't blow the organs out of your assailants body like a .45 would, however a gun that large for personal protection during day to day activities just seems foolish to me. A lighter, more inexpensive weapon with less recoil will get the point across just as well to an attacker. However if you feel confident in your ability to produce a concealed, high powered handgun and fire accurately, possibly numerous times, under duress well more power to you.

MSD

What I meant is that the house on the left is broadcasting the fact that they are unarmed. Since British law does not allow people to defend their homes, any home can be entered without the fear of being shot.

MSD

Yes. The proper weapon for defense is that which provides the highest chance of incapacitating the attacker in the fastest way possible. a .45 hollow point has a 98% chance (off the top of my head, might be a bit off,) of causing sufficient neural shock to incapacitate an attacker with one shot. If I am defending myself against an armed assailant, I want the most stopping power possible.

edit: if you want more info, check the .45 acp and .40 vs. .45 threads in weaponry. There's a lot of useful information in there.

sandinista

The philosophy of any liberal society is the "right to life, liberty, and property" as locke dictated in his 2nd treatise. I think that Britain is going a bit overkill in prosecuting people who defend themselves, but I think that the crazy right wing vision that you need to have a weapon in order to protect yourself is equally, if not more dangerous for society. If you pay taxes, and chose to take advantages of things in your society (social security, medicare, etc. etc.) then you have given up your natural rights, with the trust that your society will be responsable for them. Thus, if you decide to be a citizen of the Great Britain, you no longer have the right to defend your own property, because it's the states responsability to defend your property, not your own anymore.

If there was no government, then yes, as Locke says, you have a right to defend your property with the means bestowed on you (murder anyone who threatens you or your property), but since there is a government in place, its responsability is to protect you and your property. This keeps petty thieves from being killed, and gives people fair trials in a court system unbiased. If the police don't protect you and your property, then you have a right to rebel against your country. That's the bottom line, right there. You shouldn't hole yourself up with weapons and just say that it's "not your problem", because then it just prolongs everyone's misery.

__________________
"Nature herself makes the wise man rich."
-Cicero

Dostoevsky

What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any knowledge of firearms or ballistics? The .45 ACP and .357 magnum are two of the most effective, time tested stopping rounds out there. If I fire on an assailant, I'm not trying to get a point across, I'm trying to immediately incapacitate that person. With that in mind, I'm going to carry the most lethal calibers possible. I'm a large man and experienced shooter. After doing extensive ballistics research and speaking with many others, I like .45 acp, .357 mag, and 10mm for self defense.

You mentioned "lighter, more inexpensive weapons." Manufacturers produce firearms chambered in both of these calibers that are specifically designed for concealed carry. As far as price is concerned, I don't see your point. Caliber doesn't dictate price. Price depends on manufacturer and model.

Listen, I don't mind you disagreeing with me, that's fine. I don't appreciate the tone or the quality of the two posts you put on this thread though. Please put more thought into how you post disagreements with others. Mutual respect is what makes this board special and it is how we keep things civil around here.

-Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky

Police can't be everywhere at all times. Some crime is going to occur regardless of what measures the state takes to prevent it. Do you honestly have the mindset to just sit back and be a victim if someone decides to commit a crime against you?

The second part of your post suggested that if the state isn't able to protect its citizenry from violent crime, that you should overthrow it. It seems unrealistic to expect the same people who wouldn't protect themselves against criminals would suddenly find the courage rise up against their government.

It seems to me that the whole arguement on this thread boils down to whether people have internal or external loci of control. People with internal loci of control don't expect the government to provide everything for us, that includes protection. People with external loci of control are more likely to have that victim mentality. They expect the government to protect them and feel like they don't have any control over what happens to them.

Anyone who takes an interest in this thread should read Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' if you have time. It is full of insight on this topic.

stevie667

British law does allow people to defend their homes, it just doesn't do it that well at this moment in time. Government advice has been to lock yourself away and call the police, but it's not the law.

Why do you think that shooting people is the only recourse of action when your home is entered illegially? Does every intruder in America stop and think that the household they're about to burgal has a gun, and does that even stop them half the time anyway? Do those houses with guns advertise that factor?

Livia Regina

How else would I defend myself if I were attacked? I have no idea what they are doing there or what their intentions are, why shouldn't I assume the worst and protect myself and who ever else is in my class? The possibility that a home owner is armed does keep burgalers out of houses. Would you burgal a house where there was the remotest possibility that you'd get shot? Or would you prefer someplace safer?

__________________
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

stevie667

If guns keep people from breaking into other peoples houses, why do we still get people shooting people breaking into their houses?
People will still break into your house, and probably won't give a damn half the time if you have a gun because they intend to be in and out before you get a chance to confront them, or when your not present.

I'm not saying you shouldn't protect yourself, far from it, but people were killing and maming other people long before guns were invented. A golf club will do a fair amount of damage to someone, as will a large stick or kitchen knife. It's the mentallity that one needs a gun to properly defend themself that really gets at me.

rat

For those of you who don't know, home defense does not equate to self-defense. The tenets for self-defense in the United States are such that someone has used and/or attempted the use of lethal force, and you have no ability to flee. Shooting a burglar is aggravated assault, attempted murder or murder unless the burglar has produced a firearm and pointed/discharged it at you, or has wielded a knife within roughly 12 feet of you and you had no ability to evade or flee. Those are the stuatory strictures on self-defense put down by the courts and legislators.

Therefore, if a burglar enters your home, steals something, and you offer the use of force outside of reasonably restraining him, especially with the use of a weapon, you should and probably will be convicted of assault, aggravated assault, or murder. Until he's convicted of the crime, his rights are the same as yours under the eyes of the law.

__________________

ICER

here,here.

I could not have said it better myself Whocarz.

And it's a charge that I will except and gladly go to jail for. I will draw a line in the sand. and defend my family with every means at my deposal.

__________________
What's the difference between congress and a penitentiary?
One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.
~~David Letterman

Aborted

My thoughts exactly. My lack of a gun doesn't soften the business end of my cricket bat. Besides, I don't see how guns bear any relevance to burglaries in Britain because of our laws about them. Even if someone did break into a home and pulled a gun when confronted, what's the owner going to do? Politely ask the intruder to wait a second while they run to the cupboard to fetch their shotgun? Or are they supposed to shoot first and ask questions later, and in so doing kill what could potentially be a kid trying to make off with 20 quid? So long as guns aren't part of the equation, which I can't ever see them being here, I think we're in a better position to get some effective legislation through Parliament.

hokiesandwich

In the US, the laws seem to favor the homeowner. Once someone breaks into your home, it is generally accepted you can do whatever you need to remove the person, or more precisely, the threat to your person that they present.

I think it's safe to say home defense measures of an Indiana Jones nature,(remember Indy getting to the Grail in "Last Crusade"?) where one's house is rigged to maim and disfigure an intruder is grounds for some legal action, if not being institutionalized.

The issue is - life, liberty, and property. I fail to see how any social experiment is going to save a person's right to any of these things. Bloody hell, they have martial arts in the UK, don't they? What are they for, carpentry and showmanship?

Despite all the attention things like the Patriot Act get in the USA, America is still the most free of any developed nation I can think of. Maybe the people in the UK should take it up with their MP's to change the legal culture - defending one's own hearth and home isn't too radical, is it?

Xell101

Nothing I have to say hasn't been already said but plenty of you could benefit from the information contained within the pdf you can find here.

Lebell

Galt.

Read "Atlas Shrugged" for the answer to this question.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Lebell

Not in Colorado and Texas (the two I know of).

If you break into a house, armed or not, you're fair game for the coroner.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Blackthorn

Ilegally enter my home and you will be invited one time to leave. Should you elect to not do so then I hope you have prepared yourself for the consequences of your action.

Hey Lebell...Perhaps a better question is "Who is John Elway"? Or "Who is John Kerry?" Nice reference to Ayn Rand....

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

ICER

God, I love this state

__________________
What's the difference between congress and a penitentiary?
One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.
~~David Letterman

timalkin

What about those people who don't have the strength or coordination to swing a cricket bat, such as the disabled or the elderly? Are they supposed to be at the mercy of a criminal simply because they are weak or uncoordinated?

Firearms are awesome because they level the playing field for everybody involved. Scrawny old women can disable young, strong criminals.

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

Lockjaw

Yep beat me to it. If you are in someone's house in Texas and they shoot you...it's justified. You hear these stories often enough and as far as I know nobody has been tried and convicted of manslaughter or even assault for defending their property.

Now...as far as "Just use a bat or a knife..." Yeah...if the thought of you being able to fend off an attacker with a bat makes you sleep better at night go right ahead but just one thing to consider. You have to get awfully close to an invader to take them out with a blunt melee weapon. And the closer you get the more dangerous the situation becomes and the more likely YOU won't be the one ready for the confrontation. Especially if there happens to be more than one guy. With a gun even if you miss them the likely hood of a crook hanging around to get into a gun battle with you or trying to wrest your gun away from you is minimal to nill.

Think about it seriously. If you are able to get the drop on the intruder...you can double tap him real quick and confrontation is over before they know you are there. If you AREN'T able to get the drop on them and they see or hear you coming you still have the ability to engage them from say 4-5 meters away and still be relatively safe. If you have a bat or a knife...you've got to sneak up on them...ok and only the most idiotic thief would not notice you creeping up on them so close that you can hit them with a bat with any significant force now if you aren't able to surprise them...well at that moment it becomes does the thief think they can take you? And frankly one on one you with a bat versus him with whatever he might have or might be able to pick up to defend himself is a toss up on who is going to win. You MIGHT win...you might not and you might have just succeeded in pissing off a nutjob who now likely has YOUR weapon and will likely have no problem using against you.

FL8ME

Dostoevsky

If you're still checking this board out, sorry if I came of like an ass. My second post wasn't aimed at you, but the person who chose to make a smarmy comment without actually offering any insight or help. I understand the need to keep things civil as well. Now I am off to a discussion where maybe (allbeit unlikely) I can knowledgeably contribute.

hokiesandwich

Does anyone have a site or group of sites listing laws for home defense, as we've been discussing?

I'm in VA, and I don't want to go to the library to look this up in the books.

Thanks.

WillyPete

Ok, Tonay Martin's case has been brought up and I think some of you need to become acquainted with the case.

He had been burgled before by the same people.
He prepared himself and had a loaded shotgun ready. His intent was to kill.
The victim who died was shot in the back. This does not constitute self defense in the mind of a jury.

A criminal running away in England is a matter for the police. An intruder facing you whilst standing in the dorrway to your house is a matter for the shotgun.

For all of you who carry, I agree that you feel confident in the use of your firearm and your rights to use it. The problem arises when people DON'T know when they may use it and it becomes a needless killing.
A druggie stealing your car radio doesn't need to die for that. The punishment doesn't justify the crime. If he were to approach you with a knife when you disturbed him, well, that's a different issue.

Do the kids that are toilet papering your house constitute a threat to your family?

Aborted

My personal belief is that guns are unecessary, but I can accept and (at least make a decent attempt to) understand the love affair many Americans have with them. The fact is, England is not America, we do things differently here and I for one am glad that guns have managed to stay out of mainstream circulation.

Last year, 81 people were shot and killed in the entire country (data found here). Tragic though each case undoubtedly is, thats not a huge figure in the slightest. Imagine, though, the increase in that figure if gun laws were slightly more lax and firearms fell into the possession of not only home owners, but burglars as well. I'm not suggesting outright guerilla warfare would break out each time an intruder was caught, but the intensity and violence of the situation would escalate to a level that could only result in more deaths and a greater consumption of police resources that far outsrips the nature of the original crime. While I agree that people have every right to defend their homes against intruders and to use violence if necessary, I think it's equally important to ensure that fighting to the death is restricted to the minority of cases where an intruder breaks into a house specifically to cause the occupants harm. To this end, the first step on the road to success is the maintenance and improvement of our current gun laws and not their relaxation.

I guess I'm naive in that I draw the line at putting a dent in the head of anyone who puts me or my family at risk, but that's how it goes.

Dostoevsky

Haha, yeah, I've read it and thoroughly enjoyed it Lebell. I just wrote that because this thread touches on fundamental issues from 'Atlas Shrugged.'

__________________
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned.


It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Lasereth

I recently learned this in LAW class a couple of months ago and was disturbed by it. I understand that our law system wouldn't work if people could mortally wound others for breaking and entering, but damn, if someone is breaking into another's house then they're simply asking for it.

I think that a citizen stupid enough to break into another person's home is asking to be force-fed a lead sandwich with extra mayo. Same thing with robbing in towns or mugging. When I get outta college I'm getting my concealed permit ASAP. If I ever see someone attempting to rob me or hurt my family, they're simply gonna get hurt. If they have a gun, then we're going down cowboy style. If they have a knife...cowboy style in the leg. If they're unarmed, I'm becoming the next .500 Babe Ruth with a baseball bat.

I personally believe that once you break into someone's house with the intent on stealing, trashing, or hurting the people inside, you've given up your right as a citizen or even a human. You've become a thief, someone who deserves the ass kicking you're going to receive or the inevitable jail-time if you're caught.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

flamingdog

That kind of reads like rhetoric to me. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to imagine I could take down anyone who happened to venture into my place.

"You're gonna regret it one way or another, as long as you're smaller/drunker/less armed than me." Plus, here, it's quite illegal to just cap someone, even when they're on your property. Self defence is a tricky one to pull in that instance, unless they're threatening your life. You guys in the US can keep a loaded gun and shoot the motherfucker as soon as he steps over your threshold. So naturally, you'll have a more gung ho attitude than us.

william

If in doubt, waste him/her and lay him/her across the window. It's a simple rule I learned from my father. The police may question the dead intruder inside or outside of your home. They don't question why he's (she's) dead trying to break in.

WillyPete

...and they'll never even worry about the large red spots in the hallway where you actually shot them?
You'll be able to explain shooting someone in a darkened room, but never be able to explain a moved body.
Please read the advice above regarding home defense and self defense legalities.
You MIGHT get the same effect if you take a knife from the kitchen and place it in their hand or find a weapon on them. still, if you need to do this you have broken the law and murdered someone.

As an aside, I'd reconsider any other advice your father gave you.

rat

You're wrong on many account. Having taken law classes in the state of Texas, taught by someone who has practiced law in the state for the last thirty years, it is not legal to assault or kill someone on your property that has not offered you the threat of lethal force. I highly suggest you hit up a site like www.findlaw.com to actually learn what's on the books before shooting off your mouth.

There are also documented court cases of people who have been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for having a shotgun wired to fire at the front door of a house if it was opened from the outside. A man had his home repeatedly burgled, decided to put a shotgun on a stand, aimed at his front door. When the burglars came back again, the shotgun discharged, a burglar was harmed, and the homeowner went to jail for aggravated assault.

Some of you people need to actually do some research into the statutes of your state and nation before spouting out incorrect information.

Let me repeat this:

Offering lethal force to someone who has not already attempted to use lethal force upon you constitutes aggravated assault or attempted murder; using lethal force upon someone who has not attempted to use it upon you is murder; if someone attempts to use any sort of physical or lethal force upon you, you have a duty to flee if posssible; only if force or threat of lethal force is used upon you, AND you have no ability to flee, then and only then, can you use lethal force and have it classified as self-defense.

__________________

whocarz

Actually, guns were TAKEN out of mainstream circulation in England. If you want to educate yourself about your own country and don't mind a bit of reading, check out this essay:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

dksuddeth

If I'm not mistaken, the state of texas qualifies that any home invasion/breakin can be interpreted with the suspects intent to do physical harm in most cases. This exempts about 90% of homeowners responsible for the slaying of an assailant.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Aborted

I skimmed it, thanks for the interesting read. I don't see how reading an article on the gradual erosion of British gun laws based on American concepts of civil liberty teaches me anything about my own country, however. In the long run, the views of American scholars aren't going to affect the law here. I also wasn't overly impressed with the author equating the removal of our "right" to own a gun with "a slide down a slippery slope". I see owning a gun as neither a demonstration of civil liberty or a right, but that's a subject for another thread and one in which I doubt my view would find much sympathy.

However, interesting though it is, it doesn't change the fact that guns are not in mainstream circulation in England and haven't been for some time. My point remains unchanged.

WillyPete

Including getting away with killing the guy who has the legal right to reposess your car.
It's happened where the homeowner has shot the guy in the driveway.