Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

With all the things out there that cause so much death and mahem, why is it that guns seem to get such a, in my mind anyway, disproportionate amount of blame? I keep seeing references to Columbine and all of the students killed there along with well publicized yearly memorials, gun crimes, ect., and it seems that the news does not lose step talking about how more gun control should be put in place.

Because we live in a civilized society with the rule of law and guns have no purpose other than killing living things. It's logical that they will stand in low regard as they exist in direct contrast to the concept of the sanctity or importance of life.

In an ideal society guns wouldn't exist because they are tools for murder and nothing more.

Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

Melissia wrote:Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

By the definition of ideal, yes. Conceptually we should strive to be as close as possible though. The removal of guns from society is an important step to be taken in that direction, though I doubt it'll ever happen in America. The United States has far from an idyllic society and it seems pretty happy with it's weird monster-truck-rally civilization as is.

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

You will note I also state that I own a BROADSWORD. This is perfectly adquate to wave at a number of British burglars to encourage their expeditious egress from my property.

I have done this before and had no trouble as they tend to get fething scared of the naked mental dude waving 3 feet of sharpened sprung steel.

As for getting threatened in the street this has only happened to me thrice in my life and I am still alive (as are my assailants but they were punished under the law).

Lets not go into weapons ballistics. The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

All I did was dispute your assertion that "It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home."

At least in one case, it is. In fact, it's manslaughter.

Also, I laughed at your trollish characterization of the United States as "emotionally under-developed." Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

Private_Joker wrote:The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

Why would you want to do less damage from a gun? If you're determined to harm someone, a through-and-through from a 9mm isn't going to be much of a deterrant. A gaping wound from a hollow-point .38, however, is more likely to give one pause.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

You will note I also state that I own a BROADSWORD. This is perfectly adquate to wave at a number of British burglars to encourage their expeditious egress from my property.

Yeah, but how many people actually own one of those? The best most people can do is cricket bats (which, to be fair, are still pretty handy for bludgeoning people until they bleed)

Private_Joker wrote:Lets not go into weapons ballistics.

Why not? Should those ignorant of the facts be making laws?

Private_Joker wrote: The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

On the contrary, the most realistic goal is to study what is most effective as a self defense weapon and use the results of that study to determine what should be used for self defense.

ShumaGorath wrote:Conceptually we should strive to be as close as possible though.

Looking so far ahead that you cannot see waht is right in front of you is not a healthy way to live.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Yeah, but how many people actually own one of those? The best most people can do is cricket bats (which, to be fair, are still pretty handy for bludgeoning people until they bleed)

Furthermore, effectively maintaining and wielding a broadsword requires more training and physical strength than effectively maintaining and wielding a handgun.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

All I did was dispute your assertion that "It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home."

At least in one case, it is. In fact, it's manslaughter.

Also, I laughed at your trollish characterization of the United States as "emotionally under-developed." Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

Private_Joker wrote:The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

Why would you want to do less damage from a gun? If you're determined to harm someone, a through-and-through from a 9mm isn't going to be much of a deterrant. A gaping wound from a hollow-point .38, however, is more likely to give one pause.

I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy than I would characterize them underdeveloped. That implies linear development along a sociological pathway which is kinda weird.

Looking so far ahead that you cannot see waht is right in front of you is not a healthy way to live.

And throwing out meaningless idiosyncratic quibbles to avoid meatier arguments is not a healthy way to debate or interface with other peoples opinions.

Joey wrote: a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

biccat wrote:Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

The national identies are out, there's no turning back now! Take cover, folks.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

All I did was dispute your assertion that "It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home."

At least in one case, it is. In fact, it's manslaughter.

Also, I laughed at your trollish characterization of the United States as "emotionally under-developed." Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

Self defence!=feel free to kill someone who's broken into your home at any point in the past. Someone who's broken into your home and is running away from you is not much of a threat. Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

For all you know he was just running back to his car to grab his own gun.

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

For all you know he was just running back to his car to grab his own gun.

Highly unlikely in the UK. In this case, it seemed pretty clear that the dude had decided to cut his losses, but yeah, there is the point of what constitutes self-defence to consider in these cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

Untrue, as that argument doesn't take into account the judgement necessary to decide when to use it.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

Criminals, starving people, people with diseases, minorities, the poor, etc. Part of having a self motivated culture of entrepreneurial independence is an inherent lack of empathy for those in positions worse than yours. It's required for it to work at all. of course, no broadly stated "culture" or social zeitgeist is particularly descriptive of an entire nation, so there are plenty in the U.S. who would be incredibly empathetic.

It's more a weighted average.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

She could. To use such a weapon justly requires an absolute moral authority, but as those are derived by the situation and not legal or hereditary right then it really depends on whats gone down.

Joey wrote:Self defence!=feel free to kill someone who's broken into your home at any point in the past. Someone who's broken into your home and is running away from you is not much of a threat.

They may be a threat, they may not be a threat. I'd rather let the person whose life is at stake make that determination.

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

You're taking the position that shooting someone at all is wrong, is shooting them in the back "more wrong"?

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

I don't need moral authority. With a gun, I have actual authority.

You're arguing against depriving people of the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. I'm not sure you should be claiming the moral high ground.

Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

ShumaGorath wrote:Criminals, starving people, people with diseases, minorities, the poor, etc.

You're thinking of US conservatives and assuming they represent the entirety of the population. This is inaccurate.

There's plenty of individuals pushing to expand food stamps (IE government compensation to help those whom are going hungry), unemployment compensation, medical coverage paid for by the government, the rights of minorities, and for the poor (the poor do not have to pay income tax, for example, frequently get money back from the government instead of having to pay money to the government).

And that's just the public sector. There's plenty of private non-profit and for-profit organizations that help out all of these. They just don't get much press because it isn't as exciting as political shouting matches.

Joey wrote:You have no moral authority whatsoever.

Still have more than you, I actually care about the victims of crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

Because it is something that happens to people in the real world.

I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through them its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest. The lesser damaging round is enough to deter the guy.

Say if you were charging me right now, even if I shot you through a limb, hand or so that is enough to register pain in your mind and decide should I continue and do I want another one? Once again even the military/police aim to injure not kill.

Private_Joker wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

Making the target bleed out is the only surefire way to ensure that they will be incapacitated, because even a druggie can't do anything if they've lost too much blood.

Then you have problems with overpenetration. Same reason the police use smaller rounds, your ultimate goal should be to not kill. This is why tazer technology is also more advised.

Blindingly incorrect. Your ultimate goal is to stop the attacker from being a threat. I don't know what your police have, but ours (depending on jurisdiction) have anything from 9mm to 45ACP, to .223/.308 or shotguns if they have time or capacity.

Albatross wrote:Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

It's used as an example of violent crime, and a reason for self-defence.

Melissia wrote:Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

To heck you say! A vote Frazzled is a vote for Utopia...Frazzled's utopia!

Private_Joker wrote:I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa is because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest.

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

Also, I know you're not book smart on it. That is no reason to ignore the topic, it just means you need to educate yourself on the topic. Setting rules without knowing a damned thing about what you're setting rules about? THAT is unethical *eyes Washington DC*.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Self defence!=feel free to kill someone who's broken into your home at any point in the past. Someone who's broken into your home and is running away from you is not much of a threat.

They may be a threat, they may not be a threat. I'd rather let the person whose life is at stake make that determination.

The jury made that decision.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

You're taking the position that shooting someone at all is wrong, is shooting them in the back "more wrong"?

Shooting someone isn't "wrong". Shooting someone evil is probably a good thing. But shooting someone who's running away, yeah I'd say that's pretty low.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

I don't need moral authority. With a gun, I have actual authority.

You're arguing against depriving people of the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. I'm not sure you should be claiming the moral high ground.

Dear Americans-
Prefixing a statement with "the right to" does not make you correct.
If you want to defend yourself against a violent criminal, why don't you try working out? I have the confidence that I know I could pummel the gak out of any burgler that dared come into my house, because I'm a hard bastard. Why don't you do the same? Why do you insist on putting yourself and your loved ones at risk by having a gun?
You've inadvertantly pointed out the real issue here-you think a gun gives you authority, probably because you have a small penis. That's okay, not everyone can afford a sports car.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

You will note I also state that I own a BROADSWORD. This is perfectly adquate to wave at a number of British burglars to encourage their expeditious egress from my property.

Yeah, but how many people actually own one of those? The best most people can do is cricket bats (which, to be fair, are still pretty handy for bludgeoning people until they bleed)

Fewer women even. My wife doesn't have a broadsword, but she has something far, far worse, a Kia minivan and a firm belief that curbs are merely guidelines.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa is because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest.

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

Also, I know you're not book smart on it. That is no reason to ignore the topic, it just means you need to educate yourself on the topic. Setting rules without knowing a damned thing about what you're setting rules about? THAT is unethical *eyes Washington DC*.

I guess his argument revolves around the idea of correct application of force. He's arguing that if crippling an assailant with a shot would stop him, then there is no need for a more lethal round, as that would be overuse of force. It's one of the issues that I understand gets brought up in gun law legislation a lot.
At least, that's how I've interpreted it. I may be wrong.

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

You must havew a low opinion of your military and police then.

Dear Americans-
Prefixing a statement with "the right to" does not make you correct.

Dear Brit.
It does.

I don't need moral authority. With a gun, I have actual authority.

You're arguing against depriving people of the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. I'm not sure you should be claiming the moral high ground.

Actual authority is meaningless when discussing the rightness of an act. Otherwise hurricanes are justified.

You're thinking of US conservatives and assuming they represent the entirety of the population. This is inaccurate.

Not really. Americans are very inured to the plight of others and that's true of both sides of the political spectrum. We're a xenophobic and independent people.

There's plenty of individuals pushing to expand food stamps (IE government compensation to help those whom are going hungry), unemployment compensation, medical coverage paid for by the government, the rights of minorities, and for the poor (the poor do not have to pay income tax, for example, frequently get money back from the government instead of having to pay money to the government).

And just as many doing the opposite. The popularity of foreign aid and interventionism is at an all time low.

And that's just the public sector. There's plenty of private non-profit and for-profit organizations that help out all of these.

Private charity is also at an all time low, both in volume and per capita.

They just don't get much press because it isn't as exciting as political shouting matches.

They get press every five seconds, they just don't do much that's meaningful or impactful. The numbers don't lie, the average citizen of the U.S. is one of the least charitable citizens out of the whole of the western world. I'm sure it's fun to imagine that we're a great beacon of giving though. Undeserved back patting is one thing that the U.S. does better than anyone (barring south korea).