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.

Nobody is saying we'd have a damn party and roast marshmallows in celebration. I'm sure it'd shake me to the core even if I wounded the guy and he lived.

If I was able to, ie the guy wasn't lunging for me or pulling a gun, warn the intruder first. I'd give him 5 seconds to turn his back to me and walk out of my house. That is all that I would offer that person. If after 5 seconds are up and he/she is still standing there looking at me or still rummaging through my stuff you damn right I'm going to shoot. When they refuse to heed my warning and comply I can only assume they are going to hurt me if given the chance or at the very least try to grab something of value and then run for it.

One chance. 5 seconds if I'm able to give them that warning. After that I'll call the Sheriff and I'll tell them to call a mortician.

Sorry scumbag. Game over. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200

That is perfectly understandable. Getting worked up is also understandable, even over the thought of this situation actually happening.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .

Okay... you think killing is bad... I understand that...

i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors

But killing is okay in this situation? Ignore the fact that I have typed here, and seriously review your logic on this one. You have said that you would not shoot, but you would shoot... understand?
.

Ok wrex , just for you i'll attempt to multi quote... (opens another tab window)

K see this list , are the variables in a break in scenario that is very real . Ignoring any of them can put yourself in high risk , if not fatal .... for you AND your family:

In a situation where you do NOT know whats going on ( example you are asleep and wake up to smashed window / kicked door etc etc )
How do you safely determine the danger?
- do you know how long they have been in your house? can you be certain the broken glass is only the start of the intrution ? ( how do you know the glass didnt fall off later after they smashed it via tape first )
- do you know how many intruders are involved? ( so if 1 surrenders , how do you confirm its safe? . If you can sneak pass 1, how do you confirm there arnt more? )
- can you tell their motive ? dont forget the type that murders even after getting their loot ( how do you confirm they are only in for robbery not murder? seriously )
- can you confirm whether the police will arrive before the intruder reaches you and your family member's rooms? ( tic tok tic tok , not risking it )
- can you confirm their weaponry? do you assume they only carry knives and will only lunge at you as first sign of aggression? ( confrontation between life and death only takes a split second , none of us normal humans can spare it )
- what if they carry a gun? can you see? do you honestly believe they'll turn the light on? or are you going to turn the light on to check their weapon? ( again , emphasizing on how hard if not impossible to confirm the situation to warrant the force required to incapacitate the intruder )
- or do you have some night vision goggle / xray display gates ? ( lol )

Compare that list with what i have said many times as well:
For example:

Yes , if the home owner shouts "i call the police , give up or give it up or i'll shoot " and the intruder actually drop onto the floor with arms and legs spread out and surrenders . It can end peacefully

Which is assuming his accomplices didnt know whats going on and didnt storm in afterwards to turn you into a bee hive. Then yes its possible to end the situation .

Wrexasaur wrote:That was for Fateweaver actually, and I have no problem with his views, just the fact that he seems to take intense pleasure from the whole idea.

You however Luna, seem to be pushing uphill for the sake of going downhill backwards... just saying. Read your statement a few more times, and try to point out the fallacy in it.

Wait... here it is...

Im just confused to why seb keep claiming i would shoot a intruder dead for the sake of just intruding .

Okay... you think killing is bad... I understand that...

i rather think the house owner should have the right to play it safe and not risk the unknown factors

But killing is okay in this situation? Ignore the fact that I have typed here, and seriously review your logic on this one. You have said that you would not shoot, but you would shoot... understand?

Fateweaver wrote:Either way I lose because I wasted money and time and effort on someone who doesn't deserve to exist on the same planet I do.

Right... okay then. You can do what you do, and you will I am sure, just make sure that Santa does not "give" you a bad wrap on Christmas .

DIE BUGS DIE!!! Bugs that look an awful lot like you... but I digress.

I wouldn't take pleasure in killing another, well I guess maybe if he raped my girlfriend or something I would but that is not what is being discussed here (rape). It would upset me but I would not feel remorse or pity, nor would I smile and spit on his body. Even in that situation I'd be under scrutiny and berating and brow beating by cops to make sure I'm not full of gak. The stress would probably age me another 10 years but if it's the price I have to pay to defend my home than so be it.

It's a realistic view of a very realistic situation. If I enjoyed the idea of killing someone, even in self defense then most likely I would enjoy killing period. I can't say I do. I've never killed anyone but rest assured I don't get off on the idea of killing.

Again, I don't need to feel threatened personally under Mn law. Just the idea of someone being in my house without my permission gives me the only authority I need to use lethal force if Me, myself and I deem it necessary. I could stick to baseball bats and rolling pins but I'm guessing shooting somebody, even if it doesn't kill them, is a lot more humane than disfiguring their face with a baseball bat or even putting them in a coma from blunt force trauma to the head.

But I digress. It's 5am my time, I'm tired of debating. Some will always believe everyone has a right to live regardless, others will feel the way I do. I defend Luna as funnily enough I understand where she is coming from and how she would handle it. Doesn't make her less wrong than the people saying to flee your house or bargain with the person. If a friend or family member broke into someones house and was shot and killed I would be upset of course but I would not begrudge the person who did so if it was proven and they convinced me that they had no choice.

Fateweaver wrote:Doesn't make her less wrong than the people saying to flee your house or bargain with the person.

I know.... but thats half of the thing i cant agree with others. Because there is no way to guarantee they can be bargained with.

I shudder everytime i recall the news of 70 and 80 year old beaten to death in their sleep after some teens robbed their house clean.

Whilst I agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself, your family and your property (and I wish such laws were stronger here in the UK), I don't agree that you should be able to use lethal force to do so unless your life is directly under threat (vis someone shooting at you or running at you with a knife/etc).

The prevelance of guns in the US probably leads to many more deaths than would otherwise occur in home defence situations in other nations. A gun is almost by definition a tool designed to kill things. It was designed with that as its primary use.

And the sad fact is that in a country where pretty much anyone and everyone can get a gun, your attacker/breaking in person is just as likley to have one as you are, if not more likley.

As I have never been confronted by an attacker in my own home, or even had someone break in, I cannot say what I would do. I would certainly not aim to kill an attacker. I would be more likley to attempt to chase him off or failing that, restrain him.

The problem with arming yourself is that you begin a series of escalation moves. Not to mention that bringing a weapon you are not firmilliar with can be as much a hinderance as a help.

I am of average build and size and believe that I could probably hold my own against most people in a low threat situation, such as confronting a burgler who has just entered the property (as they will have a free corridor of escape). If confronting them in a higher level of threat, I would at least want the element of surprise on my side, which would mean the threat was such that I felt the need to preemptively attack in order to defend myself/family/etc.

I personally think that most break ins will fall into the low risk category, with most burglers choosing to flee rather than fight.

I don't hold with the idea that most people breaking in would rather stand and fight than to attempt to make off with whatever they have managed to steal/without a fight. I also don't hold with the idea that someone breaking in has the express intention of causing your person harm. Such people are comparatively rare, and I believe, can be identified through their actions sufficiently easily to allow you to prepare to either run away, or take more definitive action in your own defence.

Fateweaver wrote:Just the idea of someone being in my house without my permission gives me the only authority I need to use lethal force if Me, myself and I deem it necessary

I can see about ten million problems with this specific interpretation, but I think you did not mean it in the way that I think you did. I am also quite sure that you contradicted yourself quite profusely with the generic quality that this statement conveys.

SilverMK2 wrote:The problem with arming yourself is that you begin a series of escalation moves. Not to mention that bringing a weapon you are not firmilliar with can be as much a hinderance as a help.

That and how in the feth are you going to have that gun ready in time? The ONLY practical way I can think of is by having it out in the open, or under your pillow or something (OMFG...OMFG...OMFG CRAZY). Whereas some households may be find an appropriate way to keep a firearm ready, most have all sorts of conflicting interests to that situation. The list goes on and on, and the situations that could occur simply do not merit a ready firearm in my eyes.

That and I would honestly prefer to have a dog sick-balls (morals be damned) while I got my family to safety and called the police. I am also a bit of a Mcgiver, so I would probably have some sort of tiger trap if I was expecting someone... I mean nachoes... and a sunday... ahem.

Wrex did my long post at attempting to explain it to you make any sense?

M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?

Wow...
just wow

The guy did a bit more than steal. Although, actually, as it turned out, "attempted steal" snicker. He lunged at an armed home occupant. And however you spell the dang thing, it's no toothpick. I doubt he could have missed the 3 feet of hardened steel ol boy was packin. I mean; this isn't a matter for the courts, this is Darwin in action.

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, as Americans, we already have that right.

We simply want it to be strongly upheld under all circumstances.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I will take this at face value and say GOD DAMN RIGHT.

Lordhat wrote:...
We'll ask you what your definition of decent is after your house is invaded. Until you experience just how exposed, vulnerable, and violated it makes a person feel, don't comment on it. Seriously.

Eh......., while I think we are on the same side of the argument, it IS a forum.

frgsinwntr wrote:unless your life is threatened, it is murder.

yep, it is murder I said it.

however since the intruder lunged at someone with a sword.... it could be accidental/manslaughter and not murder.

http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm

The link was enough. Text walls do nothing to bring us together as a community, so let's not build them, hm'k? Seriously, good contribution but the link would have been fine.

Fateweaver wrote:Nobody is saying we'd have a damn party and roast marshmallows in celebration.

Without trying to sound like I am degrading your opinion; I just might. And some would join me.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sure it'd shake me to the core even if I wounded the guy and he lived.

If I was able to, ie the guy wasn't lunging for me or pulling a gun, warn the intruder first. I'd give him 5 seconds to turn his back to me and walk out of my house. That is all that I would offer that person. If after 5 seconds are up and he/she is still standing there looking at me or still rummaging through my stuff you damn right I'm going to shoot. When they refuse to heed my warning and comply I can only assume they are going to hurt me if given the chance or at the very least try to grab something of value and then run for it.

One chance. 5 seconds if I'm able to give them that warning. After that I'll call the Sheriff and I'll tell them to call a mortician.

Sorry scumbag. Game over. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200

In addition to what you said, I'm a family man. I'll gladly defend them. Even when the wife is mad at me and I am couch-bound.

LunaHound wrote:Wrex did my long post at attempting to explain it to you make any sense?

Yes it did. In the future I would focus on clarity to avoid any more flame wars. Keeping your format crisp is the key to success in an online conversation.

I understand what you say for the most part, but you do quite liberally blur the lines of clarity on occasion. The red and green text killed me .

Blue and orange are much better, and they will help you keep a clear intent.

SilverMK2 wrote:Whilst I agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself, your family and your property (and I wish such laws were stronger here in the UK), I don't agree that you should be able to use lethal force to do so unless your life is directly under threat (vis someone shooting at you or running at you with a knife/etc).

The prevelance of guns in the US probably leads to many more deaths than would otherwise occur in home defence situations in other nations. A gun is almost by definition a tool designed to kill things. It was designed with that as its primary use.

And the sad fact is that in a country where pretty much anyone and everyone can get a gun, your attacker/breaking in person is just as likley to have one as you are, if not more likley.

As I have never been confronted by an attacker in my own home, or even had someone break in, I cannot say what I would do. I would certainly not aim to kill an attacker. I would be more likley to attempt to chase him off or failing that, restrain him.

The problem with arming yourself is that you begin a series of escalation moves. Not to mention that bringing a weapon you are not firmilliar with can be as much a hinderance as a help.

I am of average build and size and believe that I could probably hold my own against most people in a low threat situation, such as confronting a burgler who has just entered the property (as they will have a free corridor of escape). If confronting them in a higher level of threat, I would at least want the element of surprise on my side, which would mean the threat was such that I felt the need to preemptively attack in order to defend myself/family/etc.

I personally think that most break ins will fall into the low risk category, with most burglers choosing to flee rather than fight.

I don't hold with the idea that most people breaking in would rather stand and fight than to attempt to make off with whatever they have managed to steal/without a fight. I also don't hold with the idea that someone breaking in has the express intention of causing your person harm. Such people are comparatively rare, and I believe, can be identified through their actions sufficiently easily to allow you to prepare to either run away, or take more definitive action in your own defence.

Ah yes.....the argument I hear all the time. 2 points and then I really am done for now.

1). There would most likely be A LOT more innocent people killed in home break ins if normal citizens could NOT own a handgun. I'm sure a lot more intruders are scared off when confronted by a gun than those deserving of a Darwin and attacking a home owner who is armed so no proof that guns given to normal citizens = more death due to citizens owning hand guns.

2) There is no statistical proof or concrete evidence that allowing law abiding citizens to own a handgun or shotgun or whatever kind of gun has INCREASED criminals and felons obtaining them. Any person with a felony, of any kind, can NEVER LEGALLY own a gun so they obtain them illegally, either by theft or by buying them on black market.

This kind of drivel that the peace loving, left wing extremists love to spout is undocumented proof and is proof that people will eat whatever bs is spoon fed to them.

Again, in some States (Mn as one) it does not matter IF I feel threatened. I can use lethal force to prevent a Felony. Burglary in my state is a Felony. If you have my Xbox in your arms I don't have to give you a second chance to walk away. All I have to tell authorities is that I felt threatened by his/her presence in my house. Nobody can contradict your feelings. Seriously, if someone breaks into my house at 3am, even if all they want is my dvd collection and PS3, I am going to feel threatened because of HOW they got into the house, not so much as WHY they broke in. You want a goddamn PS3 so bad get a job and buy one. Trying to steal one will most likely end up with you in prison or 6 feet under. Not really a tough decision IMO.

There would most likely be A LOT more innocent people killed in home break ins if normal citizens could NOT own a handgun.

Not the case over here or other "socialist 111 " type countries.

You were saying something about undocumented drivel yes ?

Knives are dangerous too though... at a range of 2 feet or less of course... and my point is smashed. WREX SMASH POINT!!! SMASH POINT SMASH!!!

It is clear that guns are not what people hype them up to be, in essence, bangstick not make dead all the time. Sometimes bangstick misfire and dead me too.

I would prefer mace and a tazergun to be totally honest, but there is something clearly psychological about having what most would consider the most dangerous weapon a person can own. I always preferred flamethrowers, but they get quite messy... hmmm, I will have sprinkles come to think of it... and some chopped up snickers bars too.

reds8n wrote:

There would most likely be A LOT more innocent people killed in home break ins if normal citizens could NOT own a handgun.

Not the case over here or other "socialist 111 " type countries.

You were saying something about undocumented drivel yes ?

Can you prove, beyond doubt, that banning handguns of all kinds except to military personnel would DECREASE the number of gun fatalities here in the US? I know the answer, you can't. You also can't compare one country that doesn't allow citizens handguns as freely as another and expect it to be fair. I can't prove the UK changing its gun laws to be more like the US will decrease fatalities of innocents but neither can you prove it wouldn't.

Every Dem who has ever been in office has tried to feth normal citizens out of guns through some sort of bs bill or law. Obama hasn't proposed anything yet but he will, just watch and wait.

Of course not, just as well that's not what I'm arguing then really eh ?

I am intrigued as to how you can prove, as according to your previous statement, that not having handguns in the house WOULD, "beyond doubt" result in more deaths. I, too, know the answer, you can't.

This is a fun game.


Shall I make a crack about gun lovin' right wing extremists spouting undocumented proof and swallowing whatever BS is spoon fed to them now ?

Fateweaver wrote:Every Dem who has ever been in office has tried to feth ME out of MY guns through some sort of bs bill or law. Obama hasn't proposed anything yet but he will, just watch and wait.

Fixed that for you...

When they try and take your guns... use them?

I dunno, this all seems like rhetorical tripe to me...

reds8n wrote:Shall I make a crack about gun lovin' right wing extremists spouting undocumented proof and swallowing whatever BS is spoon fed to them now ?

There is something crawling on your arm... want me to shoot it for you? Geez man, no need to be so harsh about this...

LunaHound wrote:And im again telling you , in the real world you wouldnt KNOW that thus the example is pointless

Okay, it’s clear you don’t understand the point of a hypothetical. You seem to be thinking that a hypothetical is there to trick you into believing something, so you’re fighting against them through whatever means you can think of.

A hypothetical is there to demonstrate a simple point. In the first hypothetical, it was there to demonstrate the idea that it was possible to exit the house without engaging the intruder at all. The second hypothetical was there to demonstrate a situation where the intruder was engaged, but not an active threat. The third hypothetical was there to demonstrate.a situation where violent force was justified.

There were no tricks, no need to invent possible other factors. They just demonstrated three simple ideas;
1) You don’t need to engage the intruder.
2) It might be clear the intruder isn’t a threat, so you don’t have to shoot him.
3) If you haven’t been able to avoid the intruder, and he appears a risk, it is sensible to defend yourself, and that can include shooting the intruder.

Three very simple points, that you’ve spent a long time doing everything but addressing.

And did i say they should? stop putting words in my mouth

No, you didn’t, but I didn’t say you did. That’s a very odd reaction and I have no idea where you got it from.

Why would i need to play passive aggressive game? Are you out of your mind? You said im not honest , i simply replied with the truth that
a forum is certainly not something worth lieing for. Cogito, ergo sum ( where the **** did you pull that from that im implying anything more? )

I don’t know why you need to play a passive aggressive game, I just observed that that was what you were doing.

Your summary is disingenuous, because it carefully skipped the one part I pointed out that did imply more. I’ll repeat it for you;
“Unlike you guys i dont find issues on forum to be worth lieing for.”

You posted that, plain as day. It implies other people here are lying, and I think you should retract it or state who is lying, and about what.

WTH? what does this have to do with honesty ? What make your situation anymore credible than mine that a break in always solo and never results in murder?

I was posting a hypothetical to demonstrate a simple point. I could have put *note this is just a hypothetical and doesn’t explain every possible situation ever but is merely used to demonstrate a point*, but I assume most people understand how a hypothetical works.

And yes, you were being dishonest. Instead of addressing a simple concept at face value, you invented a ludicrous situation involving additional attackers lurking outside. Not answering a point on it’s merits, and instead inventing silly side points is intellectual dishonesty.

Yep i answered above already , and to the 2nd part of the question. If the intruder "had" a weapon , and he threw it away and layed down head first with arms and legs out
AND the owner still decide to shoot him ( assuming its 100% confirmed there is no accomplice ) then its murder.

Thankyou, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Now from there, can you consider a range of situations where the homeowner might not be in fear of his life, but killed anyway? Because all anyone has said is that those situations occur, and the occupant isn’t always justified in using lethal force.

And from there, while accepting that the occupant isn’t in full knowledge of all the facts and that he has only a second to decide, it is still possible than in the case of some home break-ins lethal force might be used when it was not necessary.

Honestly , with me expressing my view on why its risky to deal with intruder *your way warranting this type of
garbage debate is why nothing can get done now days. You are so engorged in the sake of debating that you already forgot why we are arguing.

No, I’m not in love with debate, quite plainly this has sucked.

I do like discussion, putting forward a point, and having that point discussed on its merits, and rejected, accepted or most likely modified. But that requires people who are willing to give and take, expand points, concede where they should, and address the substance of the other side.

You haven’t done that. You’ve invented bizarre to avoid answering simple questions, you’ve written countless pages without ever addressing the very simple counter points that have been made, and you’ve thrown out passive aggressive attacks and then denied having done so.

Your form in this thread has been terrible.

Blimey..Deja Vu
moving on...

There is something crawling on your arm... want me to shoot it for you?

If it is Linkin' Park then fire away.


...I can use your medical insurance right ?

Sorry pal... all I got was this damn floating circle... not fair... goddam libbies taking away my rights... GODDAMIT WHERE ARE MY NACHOES!!!

If you were a REAL American you could use that as a lasso and capture the varmints. And then tak'em to Texas.

Or something.

BOMBS AWAY!!! HEE HEE HEE, and cherries with whip cream... oh... all you have is toothpicks? This should be an interesting dessert.

I've read most of the thread so far and have a few questions:

1) He confronted the attacker, who lunged at him, then he hit him once. Sounds like classic self-defence? Ok, and how do we know the attacker lunged at him? Did the dead guy say so? No. That would be the GUY WHO KILLED HIM saying that. I don't think you can take that at face value.

2) A neighbour heard "Screams of fear" - whose? How trustworthy is that testimony (hint: all forms of eye/earwitness testimony are barely more than junk)

3) People seem to say he should be ok for defending his home because there were other people inside and their lives might be threatened by this intruder whose intentions were unknown. Fair enough. Except the intruder wasn't in his home, he was in the garage, which the report stipulates is separate from the house. All this guy had to do is call the police, wake up his housemates, and stay alert. If they hear the guy trying to enter the house, shout "Leave, the police are on the way". No need to confront him and risk exposure to any weapons he may or may not have.

The basic truth is, we know next to nothing about this situation. We have a news report (doubtless riddled with misinformation, as nearly all news reports about crimes are) and nothing else. Any discussion about the specific case is going to be informed almost enotirely by peoples' pre-formed views, rather than the meager 'facts' we have available to us, and is therefore most likely to devolve into bickering.

I think that a more interesting (and possibly civil) discussion could be what peoples' views are regarding laws of this type, and more specifically how each person feels those laws should be worded. Is this thread the place for such a discussion or do you think a new one is warranted?

Personally, I believe that use of deadly force (i.e. force that in intended, or could be reasonably be expected, to result in the death of the person it is used on) CAN be justified in the defense of yourself and your freinds/family, but not only property. I have no idea how I would start to legislate that, and would need to give it a lot of thought, but that's my stance. Basically, if I was alone in the house and there was an intruder, I would consider getting out of the premises (after calling the police on my mobile phone) to be by far the preferable route. Choosing to confront the intruder (and yes, it IS a choice) is me choosing to expose myself to whatever weapons/drugs/mental health issues that person brought in with them, and is in my opinion a stupid thing to do even if armed.

frgsinwntr wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?

a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...

unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.

Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.

Not correct Yankee. In Texas if there is an intruder in your house the presumption is they are a threat, and you are permitted to terminate with extreme predjudice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Ya there is always unknown factors . But whats your point? Why should the home owner only get as much right as someone that willingly break in a house ?
Like i keep saying , you guys keep assuming the only type of intruder are the type that will run away after they get what they want. WHICH IS NOT the case BY FAR.
So nope mister , what you said just doesnt cut it.

You're missing the point of situational awareness. If they don't run away, then you have additional cause to use lethal force. If they have a weapon, then you have additional cause to use lethal force.

If they're in your backyard, garage, or running away from your house after being confronted, then you do not have cause to use lethal force.

This isn't a complicated concept. All that's being said is that people do not have the absolute right to use lethal force under any circumstances in which someone has unlawfully entered their homes.

Again thats not necessarily correct. Some states have specifically included locations, like garages, or even outside the home. It really is a a state by state thing. For intstance, if i night I hear something outside and see someone attempting to break into a car I can blow 'em away in texas. In Cali, at least when I lived there, you couldn't.

EDIT: wow this thread has gone on overnight hasn't it. Excellent.

Presumably there are exceptions to this, for ....say...police, firemen etc. right ?

State/federal employees on official business or summat kind of thing.

reds8n wrote:If you were a REAL American you could use that as a lasso and capture the varmints. And then tak'em to Texas.

Or something.

If you were a really real American, you would shoot them with an arrow and take their scalp

And in general reply to Fateweaver (not to anything specific, because I think his post was mostly "I WANNA SHOOT PEOPLE, DON'T TAKE MY GUNS YOU DAMN LEFTIE GAY COMMIE HO RAH!!!!111111pi7"), if a society has say, 100 guns, all specifically for use in the police and armed forces, it is next to impossible for the average citizen to gain access to a firearm. Criminals would need to go to an external source for their guns, increasing the cost and complexity of attaining them.

This means that the average criminal will have little to no chance of getting access to a gun. This leaves the more organised crim gangs and the odd dedicated criminal type as the sole people who will be motivated and connected enough to get a gun.

I understand that there are other ways of getting guns, and that they are not as rare as I have suggested above, however, I was attempting to give a simple example of how a lower total number of guns combined with a greater restriction of who can have and use them can contribute to people who are not supposed to have them from having them.

You say how can allowing people to legally have guns increase the number of armed criminals? Well, take my example above, and compare it with my example below...

If we lived in Americaland (not to be confused with any real country where there are possibly more guns than people), where anyone can buy as many guns as they like (or rather, can afford) and, say, 7/10 households have at least one "home defence" weapon, all one would have to do is brake into a couple of houses and steal a gun. That is not to mention the slightly dodgy gun shop that will sell to anyone, the "resellers" of guns that people happen-to-find-laying-on the-street-honest, etc etc.

Edit: I am also most definately not a left wing political person. My viewpoint usually lies somewhat right (quite a lot in some areas) of centralist policy. That is not to say that I do not admire certain left political points of view. I guess that is part of my being raised in a country controlled by 2 right wing parties where anything not verging on agreeing with the Nazi party is considered communist.

In reply to "This kind of drivel that the peace loving, left wing extremists love to spout is undocumented proof and is proof that people will eat whatever bs is spoon fed to them." I can only point to my edit, and add that I think you may want to examine your own viewpoint before attempting to tar others as being blind to the real world and only being able to spout the party line.

Get out of my house!

In Switzerland, by law people have guns as I understand it. If this is true, what is the crime rate there?

Silly Rabbit... tricks are for kids .

In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.

Theory that you can heavily debase with misinformation and contrived extrapolation no less. FUN TIMES!!!

If confronted by a robber, I would advise giving them your stuff and moving on with your life. If confronted by a rapist/murderer/pervert/hooligan monster thing... shoot first?

It is theory when you are in the moment too... just saying... to nuke the site from orbit...