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.

Depends from State to State but in my State of Minnesota I am allowed to use deadly force in my house to prevent a Felony from occuring. Burglary of a dwelling in Minnesota IS a Felony so even if someone is in my house just to steal my Xbox360 I have the right to shoot them if it would mean preventing that burglary from happening.

I don't want my shot to kill that person (at least in not that instance) but I am going to aim for the chest as that is the largest part of the body to aim for. If he survives the trip to the hospital than yay for him; if not, well he should have thought twice about trying to rob me.

Not all States have castle laws but my State does so if it comes to needing to take advantage of it I'm going to.

Albatross wrote:Isn't killing another human being over material posessions excessive force? In the UK you are only allowed to use lethal force if an intruder is blocking your only exit (e.g if you are in your home and an intruder is upstairs, between you and the stairs you can kill them). This presumes that you can escape and call the police - I agree with this. A lot of people on here seem to be very bloodthirsty - but how many of you have even killed someone? Even SHOT someone? Glassed someone? Stabbed someone? Been in a fist-fight? I've done TWO of these things (one of them several times), and I have to say that it sickened me on every occasion. Violence of any kind is abhorrent. I will defend my family I have to - but I honestly think that the world would be better with LESS violence, not MORE - LESS weapons, not MORE.

If someone tries to take my property, it's not my job to dispense justice - I'm not a copper. That seems to be what some people here seem to advocate, but what makes you think you have the right to decide who lives and who dies?

There will be times when a person is threatened by a criminal, and they will need to kill them to put themselves in less risk. It is also a simple fact of the crime that there will rarely be hard, objective, evidence as to whether the home owner was justified in their fear.

The reason for the Castle Doctrine's existence is that someone is going to have to take the fall, due to the inherent uncertainty in the crime. This is either going to be the burglar, being shot unjustly by an overzealous home owner, or the home owner, being imprisoned for exercising his rights. Many states have decided that the burglar should be the one to take the fall, as he was the one responsible for this no-win situation's existence. I agree with this. It is better for a burglar to die than an innocent person to be imprisoned for homicide, because the former had a choice. The burglar could have ended it before it began, and was legally obligated to do so, but refused.

Guns are great for shooting burglars and so on.

The downside is the number of accidents and the way that disputes escalate easily into shootings.

The problem with saying guns cause fights to escalate is that it's not proven.

2x4" boards, chains, broken bottles, tire irons, lead pipes are all deadly weapons when used as such.

Yeah it's easy to pull a gun on someone if they come at you but if you don't have a gun but have a tire iron or baseball bat handy your first instinct will be to grab that to defend yourself. In essence a bat is excessive if the other guy is coming at you with just his fists.

Except that none of those is designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is, and if you are carrying your own gun and are then facing someone who is threatening you with their gun, how can making any attempt to reach result in you not getting shot at?
Without that false security, yes, you'd lose some possessions, but no-one would lose their life.
Do you think anyone looks at a house and thinks "hmm, that looks like a NRA house, better not go in there!" It's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be. The ear;ier quotes are at least more honest.

Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are great for shooting burglars and so on.

The downside is the number of accidents and the way that disputes escalate easily into shootings.

You mean like the afterschool fight in Chicago a few weeks ago that resulted in an honors student being beaten to death with boots and a railroad tie. No guns involved in that escalation. Gun control is citizen control. Politicians want to control guns to control the citizens. The US constitution was written by revolutionaries who rose up to fight the government with the firearms they had. To say that would never happen today in the modern world is to be ignorant of the history of the 20th century.

Gun ownership in the US is a right of the citizens. The use of the gun is not always a right and can be regulated by law, but not ownership. America and Americans have a history of self defense. Unlike the UK, it is the homeowners right to defend themselves and their property. I can not take the position that it is the 'coppers' obligation to catch the robber. On one hand he may not catch the robber,who will be emboldened to rob again. On the other hand the robber might have more heinous intentions than to simply rob. It would be horrible to find that out after you let the robber freely rumage through your house ... and then rape your daughter.

The right to defend yourself and even to stop a crime is ingrainedinto the American psyche at an early age. It is not good to sit by and let a crime happen, even if it is not happening to you. (Spiderman origin anyone) That doesn't mean you go around shooting anyone commiting a crime, though the Punisher and even Batman take the role of a vigilanty as a hero.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

endless wrote:Except that none of those is designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is, and if you are carrying your own gun and are then facing someone who is threatening you with their gun, how can making any attempt to reach result in you not getting shot at?
Without that false security, yes, you'd lose some possessions, but no-one would lose their life.
Do you think anyone looks at a house and thinks "hmm, that looks like a NRA house, better not go in there!" It's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be. The ear;ier quotes are at least more honest.

Yes it is a deterent. A criminal won't look at the house and ask if there is an NRA member inside, but they do look at towns and cities and will be more likely to target communities with strict gun laws. And you can never assume a mugging will not go ugly. There is no reason to assume a robber with a gun will leave you alive after the crime. First the criminal is not a reasonable person since they are commiting an armed robbery in the first place. No one can assume that criminal will react within the realms of reason and logic. Second the criminal might decide that it is not a good idea to have an eye witness alive who can identify them to the police.

Surely the stance that 'I have a gun because a burglar might have one' is circular a argument because the burglar over there is probably armed because he thinks the householder is...
There are very, very few gun armed burglaries over here possibly because there are not that many households that have guns? (This is not fact, just a suposition by me)
Mick

A criminal won't look at the house and ask if there is an NRA member inside, but they do look at towns and cities and will be more likely to target communities with strict gun laws. And you can never assume a mugging will not go ugly. There is no reason to assume a robber with a gun will leave you alive after the crime. First the criminal is not a reasonable person since they are commiting an armed robbery in the first place. No one can assume that criminal will react within the realms of reason and logic. Second the criminal might decide that it is not a good idea to have an eye witness alive who can identify them to the police.

The only reason to pull a gun and not use it immediately is to intimidate the victim. In that situation, if the victim is passive and offers no threat why would you then use it? If the perpetrator is not in full control of himself, or has taken a substance which renders themselves unable to fully comprehend what they are doing, how have they managed to get a gun? By walking into a store and showing they have no previous convictions, by buying one of countless swimming around unregulated, stolen or sold, or by buying something which by its' simple possession will result in a prison sentence? Which of these is more difficult and expensive?

endless wrote:The only reason to pull a gun and not use it immediately is to intimidate the victim. In that situation, if the victim is passive and offers no threat why would you then use it? If the perpetrator is not in full control of himself, or has taken a substance which renders themselves unable to fully comprehend what they are doing, how have they managed to get a gun? By walking into a store and showing they have no previous convictions, by buying one of countless swimming around unregulated, stolen or sold, or by buying something which by its' simple possession will result in a prison sentence? Which of these is more difficult and expensive?

Ah, here it comes, the "reasonable, compassionate, play-by-the-rules criminal" argument. I was waiting for this one to show up. Are you really going to be that trusting or naive in regards to that situation?

@DarthDiggler - Yeah, because no-one ever gets raped robbed or murdered in the states do they? These crimes are more common In the USA than in the UK. And at no point did I say that I would not try to prevent myself being robbed (I DID point out that I would defend my family) - I have intervened to defend both friends and passers-by from assault. Have you? Talk is cheap. My point is that no-one has to DIE, and that the decision to take a life should not be in the hands of well, people who think like YOU, for example. What do you really know about the causes of crime? You seem to have a one-dimensional 'criminals = bad-guys' type of view. Given the social problems in the USA (the prohibitive cost of health-care, for example), the person robbing you could be doing so because he can't afford medicine for his child/spouse. Even with a job, an injury like a broken leg could bankrupt someone on minimum wage. It doesn't excuse him from punishment, of course - but does he deserve to die?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironically, the above situation becomes more likely when handguns are legal and relatively easy to obtain.

Despite popular belief I know many Canadians who own tons of guns. Their all outdoorsy hunters and fishermen though.
I think with most cases it's about being able to shoot the fool who breaks into your house.

Albatross wrote:@DarthDiggler - Yeah, because no-one ever gets raped robbed or murdered in the states do they? These crimes are more common In the USA than in the UK. And at no point did I say that I would not try to prevent myself being robbed (I DID point out that I would defend my family) - I have intervened to defend both friends and passers-by from assault. Have you? Talk is cheap. My point is that no-one has to DIE, and that the decision to take a life should not be in the hands of well, people who think like YOU, for example. What do you really know about the causes of crime? You seem to have a one-dimensional 'criminals = bad-guys' type of view. Given the social problems in the USA (the prohibitive cost of health-care, for example), the person robbing you could be doing so because he can't afford medicine for his child/spouse. Even with a job, an injury like a broken leg could bankrupt someone on minimum wage. It doesn't excuse him from punishment, of course - but does he deserve to die?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironically, the above situation becomes more likely when handguns are legal and relatively easy to obtain.

I have never had to step in to defend anyone from assault as I have never seen it (outside of school fights which don't count IMO). It is interesting that you have while living in gunless, pacifist jolly old England. I guess when you have 5 times as big a population as England there is more of an opportunity for stuff to happen. I'm not going to argue who is the more morally and culturally superior between the pond. I will say we have two different belief systems.

As an aside the city of Chicago has very strict anti-gun laws which are currently being challenged in court. Virtually no private citizen is allowed to possess a gun in the city limits., except the mayors boduguard which accompany him everywhere and sit outside his house each night.

A

h, here it comes, the "reasonable, compassionate, play-by-the-rules criminal" argument. I was waiting for this one to show up. Are you really going to be that trusting or naive in regards to that situation?

Are you that quick?

In response or on the draw?

endless wrote:Except that none of those is designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is...

Sure, a gun is designed to kill. But that doesn't make a hammer, knife or aluminium baseball bat any less deadly.

Did you know a knife will kill a victim wearing a Kevlar vest easier than a gun will? Unless you get a head shot or have AP rounds, the knife will puncture the armor much easier.

endless wrote:Without that false security, yes, you'd lose some possessions, but no-one would lose their life.

Assuming the crook plays by the rules. But wait, if they did then they wouldn't be breaking into your house now would they?

Case law is strewn with murderers who, once their victims were at gun point and basically helpless, killed their victims anyway.

Let's no pretend criminals are going to suddenly become compassionate and conscientious once you stick your hands up. There's just as much chance of them shooting you as letting you go.

endless wrote:Do you think anyone looks at a house and thinks "hmm, that looks like a NRA house, better not go in there!" It's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be. The ear;ier quotes are at least more honest.

Frankly I don't care whether the criminal is deterred or not, though I would think the flashing lights from the police cars and ambulance in my cul-de-sac illuminating the EMTs while they wheel the dead burglar out would be a great object lesson for the neighborhood teens. I am more concerned with my ability to defend myself against an armed criminal.

Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.

I would think upon seeing the MG-42 sitting behind sandbags in my front yard would keep criminals out.

Albatross wrote:@DarthDiggler - Yeah, because no-one ever gets raped robbed or murdered in the states do they?

In the States? All the time. In my house? Never. I own a gun, and I lock my doors and windows.

soldiers also have knives.

In response or on the draw?

To me either is worrying, but I meant on the draw.
In regards to the rest of

the "reasonable, compassionate, play-by-the-rules criminal" argument.

Is not the ease by which said people can find, and then use, guns a major part of the problem? I'm not saying that without them the problems would simply disappear, but that the attitude of 'my house is my castle' is part of the problem. The insistence that 'might is right' ultimately moves everything up a notch. "Peace through Superior Firepower" is not peace, it's revolution through another means.
Yes, to be honest, most criminals are career criminals who regard imprisonment as a hazard of the job, those that don't are either young or fethed-up. Both of which can be helped by not turning them into murderers. You probably don't agree with me, but people are not born bad, and guns don't make them bad or good, they just make them killers.

Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.

Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.

Again, too many people assume that if you put your hands up in surrender the criminal is just going to let you walk away from that confrontation. If you have the ability to read accurately some criminals motives and his mind than you should be more afraid of your government wanting to probe you and find out how you are able to read minds with clarity and accuracy.

You don't have the time necessary to assess the situation. A criminal WILL panic most often than not when confronted but how they react is another matter entirely. They will either fight or flee. Maybe the odds will favor your indecisiveness and the criminal will just turn and leave, or maybe he'll just shoot you dead or come at you with a knife and stab you until you either die or you manage to fight him off or shoot him while on the ground. Also, assuming you don't live alone and the criminal kills you but during the ruckus your wife comes down to see whats going on. You honestly think he'll have an qualms about killing her? He killed you with no regret. Do you want to risk the lives of your family because you decided to be ethical and try to reason with the guy in your house?

If you are willing to take that chance then perhaps you shouldn't have ever gotten married and had kids (assuming you are).

Any punk can fire a gun, but It takes a real man to get close enough to stab!!!- Chris Rock

endless wrote: Is not the ease by which said people can find, and then use, guns a major part of the problem?

Hammers are easy to obtain


So are bats


Crowbars


Knives

deleted, cos it wasn't fair.
NEW EDIT
Is not the purchase of those items is monitored in some countries?

What items? maybe those 'knives', but bats, hammers, and crowbars?

As I mentioned before, irrelevant to the laws associated with guns, someone with criminal intent who wants a gun can get one. you could ban all guns to all civilians in all countries around the globe, and people could still get them.

If a criminal is going to have a gun, and be able to threaten me and my own with it, then I deserve the right to bear my own gun to defend myself.

endless wrote:Is not the ease by which said people can find, and then use, guns a major part of the problem?

Probably not, actually. Analysis of near-total bans on guns in various cities in America generally don't notice a huge difference in the crime rates.

The biggest factors for crime here are going to be things like cultural attitudes (entitlement, personal "honor", romanticization of crime), employment opportunities, defense of black market business (particularly drugs), conviction rates for crimes, punishments for crimes (probably less of an impact than conviction rates), police presence/ability to arrest criminals, antagonistic attitudes between different groups (especially racial groups), and general respect/trust for the law/police by both potential criminals and witnesses/people with information.

Fateweaver wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.

Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.

Evidence based medical and police science disagrees with you.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/knives/msg00006.html
Check the citations about relative morbidity of knife and gunshot wounds.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/357007-overview
Read the section on Penetrating Trauma.

http://www.narpac.org/SJCRIME.HTM
Section 3 on causes of death by homicide.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/822099-overview
Paragraph 6 in the Paraphysiology section.

So the wound is bigger but it's easier to hit a vital with a knife.

Much easier to stab someone in the heart if you have them on the ground and have the advantage of leverage than to try to shoot them in the heart from 15 feet away.

Again, why does it matter how deadly something is or isn't? A common soda straw can be used to kill someone, feth, a toothpick can kill someone.

Guns being more traumatic is no excuse to make them harder for law abiding citizens to obtain nor does it make them more evil than knives, crowbars, tire irons, whatever..

If we are going to compare knives to guns then lets compare guns to cars.

Ever seen a person hit by a car that was travelling at 70mph (too lazy to convert to Kph)? It's a hell of a lot messier than a gun.

DarthDiggler wrote: A criminal won't look at the house and ask if there is an NRA member inside, but they do look at towns and cities and will be more likely to target communities with strict gun laws....

I would really like to see statistics on this, because I don't believe that. If you think about it from the view of a potential burglar, if person has an NRA sticker it may also mean they have more than one high quality firearm on premises that could be fenced for a good price. I have known people that have had their rifles stolen.

To address the OP, question:

My view on this (Having worked around guns most of my adult life and being a gun owner) is that three types of people carry their guns around. And yes I am distilling it down with broad generalizations.

1.) Insecure people.

2.) Paranoid people.

3.) People generally concerned for the well-being of themselves and their loved-ones. Although this type definitely also falls into the other two categories. I am referring to people with an ACTUAL reason (which is rare) and not a psychological one.

I am ambivalent towards guns. They are empowering but I also (like others) feel that people carrying them can sometimes escalate things to a frightening level. I like them but I would also like to see a world without them (I know, silly and romantic) but I also cannot imagine my own life without them. Odd, considering my cousin was murdered in a random violent act by a gun. It has touched my family personally yet we all (A family of cops and/or soldiers, former and active) understand that the gun is simply a tool designed for a terrible purpose. However, it was the person holding the gun that chose to commit the act.

What I am trying to say is that I feel they are simply objects, like anything else in our world. Insecure people crave them for empowerment and generally secure people (or ones that recognize and accept their insecurities) fear them for their potential. People choose to kill other people, even if the industry plays off of that empowerment by creating the tools to make it easier. People will always make tools to make things easier, no matter what it is.