Is this the way to treat a Mugger?

[MMI]

StoryCorps: Recording America
A Victim Treats His Mugger Right
From the NPR website


Julio Diaz recorded his story in New York City just days after he was mugged in the subway. StoryCorps


Morning Edition, March 28, 2008 · Julio Diaz has a daily routine. Every night, the 31-year-old social worker ends his hour-long subway commute to the Bronx one stop early, just so he can eat at his favorite diner.

But one night last month, as Diaz stepped off the No. 6 train and onto a nearly empty platform, his evening took an unexpected turn.

He was walking toward the stairs when a teenage boy approached and pulled out a knife.

"He wants my money, so I just gave him my wallet and told him, 'Here you go,'" Diaz says.

As the teen began to walk away, Diaz told him, "Hey, wait a minute. You forgot something. If you're going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm."

The would-be robber looked at his would-be victim, "like what's going on here?" Diaz says. "He asked me, 'Why are you doing this?'"

Diaz replied: "If you're willing to risk your freedom for a few dollars, then I guess you must really need the money. I mean, all I wanted to do was get dinner and if you really want to join me ... hey, you're more than welcome.

"You know, I just felt maybe he really needs help," Diaz says.

Diaz says he and the teen went into the diner and sat in a booth.

"The manager comes by, the dishwashers come by, the waiters come by to say hi," Diaz says. "The kid was like, 'You know everybody here. Do you own this place?'"

"No, I just eat here a lot," Diaz says he told the teen. "He says, 'But you're even nice to the dishwasher.'"

Diaz replied, "Well, haven't you been taught you should be nice to everybody?"

"Yea, but I didn't think people actually behaved that way," the teen said.

Diaz asked him what he wanted out of life. "He just had almost a sad face," Diaz says.

The teen couldn't answer Diaz — or he didn't want to.

When the bill arrived, Diaz told the teen, "Look, I guess you're going to have to pay for this bill 'cause you have my money and I can't pay for this. So if you give me my wallet back, I'll gladly treat you."

The teen "didn't even think about it" and returned the wallet, Diaz says. "I gave him $20 ... I figure maybe it'll help him. I don't know."

Diaz says he asked for something in return — the teen's knife — "and he gave it to me."

Afterward, when Diaz told his mother what happened, she said, "You're the type of kid that if someone asked you for the time, you gave them your watch."

"I figure, you know, if you treat people right, you can only hope that they treat you right. It's as simple as it gets in this complicated world."



...on the other hand, if Diaz had had a gun with him, he could have shot the teenager instead. Wouldn't that have been a much better solution, and a simultaneous proof that we all need to have guns at all times.

[Stealth694]

Muggers are creatures of Habit;

The best way to get balance is to do life as normal; But keep an eye out for the SOB.
If you spot him, keep an eye on him and when he attacks someone else, ATTACK HIM!!! Its amazing how fast when someone attacks a so-called Preditor, how fast they scream in pain... It may Not be the legal or civilized way to deal with a mugger but I will bet the "Victem" will get a LOT of Satisfaction, along with protecting another potential victim

[TwistedTails]

Great story, and only news because of its rarity. In my city we would be identifying Mr Diaz by his toe tag the next morning, because the tweaked out teenager took his coat, watch and stuck him a couple of times for "Talking trash" and that is the reality of things.

I'm done with this soap box, who's next?

[MMI]

C'mon ... this is one of my favourite soapbox themes. Don't be a sourpuss.

The question was, should Diaz have carrried a gun so he could protect himself from possible assaults. That way, it would have been the teenager with the toe-tag.

Better outcome or not?

[craven]

ok, you have supported a number of my threads so i will bite here, in my opinion and i am a european please remember so we dont carry guns, well unless we are invading countries in support of our transatlantic cousins!! NO, he should not have carried a gun.

to have pulled a gun and as you say given the mugger a toe tag would have only resulted in expanding the cycle of violence, as one of three things would have realistically resulted from him drawing a gun, namely:

1) he shot dead the mugger, the news of this is circulated and all other muggers therefore feel a need to either shoot first or at least strike first to ensure that they get their hits in before their would be victims can also give them a toe tag (delightful euphonism by the way)

2) as a result of him drawing a weapon a struggle resulted and the mugger gained the upper hand, and would therefore be left with no option but to stab him, so as to ensure his own safety, not saying this is right but lets face it self preservation does not always follow the moral codes of society

3) upon drawing the weapon a struggle ensues and they both end up killing each other

i know that this may sound a bit liberal and let all criminals off the hook, however if one carries a weapon, at some point there could be a need to use it, and whilst i dont have the stats for gun carriers (in europe we dont shoot each other, we are a lot more determined to be honest, if we want to kill someone we have to kick them to death, which takes a lot more effort) but those that carry knives (we do have a problem with knife crime) are more likely to end up as victims of this crime that those that dont,

i dont think i would go so far as the guy did, but i would not risk my life or the life of another for something as trivial as some money

[Thorne]

Okay, this is all well and good, but this type of outcome is so rare as to be almost ridiculous. The victim managed to get the one mugger in the city with a conscience? Lucky day!

Now, what about the mugger who demands your wallet then, after you give it to him, shoots you anyway so you can't identify him? This happens far more often than the incident shown here. Are you willing to risk your life on the remote possibility that your mugger will be Mr. Nice Guy?

Any person who pulls a weapon and threatens someone with it is, by definition, a criminal and is therefore acting outside the strictures of society. Why should we feel the need to endow such a person with the safeties that society provides? By my standards he's already forfeited those safeties.

If I have a gun and he threatens me with a knife I will pull the gun and threaten him in return, with the hope that he will run off like the coward he seems to be. If he tries to attack me with that knife, or if he has a gun of his own, I will shoot. And I will shoot to kill. I would rather take the chance on going to trial, alive, than hope that he isn't going to kill me anyway.

[MMI]

Believe me, Thorne, I do agree. In the circumstances you describe, I think you would be justified in trying to kill him. I just think the odds against you succeeding before he kills you (his weapon is aready drawn and threatening, remember) are so high as to be unacceptable. The odds of him killing you after the robbery phase might be high, but not as high as that.

Amazingly, in the UK, few mugging victims are ever killed, even where the mugger is armed. (Actually, I don't think it's at all amazing because the mugger is hyped up and simply wants to escape before Stealth694 happens on the scene.)

[voxelectronica]

Okay here's my $.02.

The man is a social worker. He see's tweaked out people *all day*. He sized up his mugger using his personal experience and decided based on his training that this TEEN was savable. People commit crime for multiple reasons. This teen boy obviously was doing it to feel a part of something. Sometimes that crime image is easier to feel a part of then the clean life.

The social worker then acted true to his nature (which made him become a social worker I'm sure).

There is danger in this story though. The danger is in thinking that every mugger out there just needs a good meal and someone to listen, and hey look this guy did it!!! No. Most muggers are indeed drug addicts. From my experience with people on drugs... you will get killed real quick and in a hurry from someone on meth or pcp (and I'm sure a list of other drugs). This one story (if true), is the story of how someone who is trained to deal with troubled teens used his training. This is NOT the story of how Susan the accountant should handle being mugged by Steve the crazed junkie.

Side note... People who carry guns should be trained to draw them and shoot them EFFECTIVELY. When that happens those rates of "accidents" go down, drastically.

[Skyybird]

I'm afraid I could never condone the ownership or use of guns. Crimes are committed and people are hurt, as a nurse I have seen my share of injuries and shattered lives as a result of gunshot wounds. There is never a good reason to carry a gun, not for self defence or to defend your property. Life is precious, things can be replaced, a person can NOT EVER be replaced.

Of course hunting and sport is a completely different kettle of cod!

[voxelectronica]

i can't agree that life is precious.

I've seen far to many junkies pass on from their own junk. Let's say that Andy is a druggie, he does... meth. Meth is a fun drug after all. It makes you violent so they say. Andy will (like a lot of people on meth) never ever get clean. In fact Andy is going to die in 2 years because of his constant use of meth. That IS his future, as is the future of a lot of street junkies.

Now Andy is running out of money, he lost his job and he is trying to keep his habbit a float of course but he has NO MONEY. Andy does what he has to... and that means steal. Now you can get away with stealing bread from a store... it's easy really but Andy he doesn't need bread he needs meth. Current rate of food stamps is 2 to 1 so that government cheese he's getting can get him high for maybe 2 days (if he's lucky). That leaves 26 sober days for him. He can't deal with that because he NEEDS more.

Andy gives in. He starts robbing people... he will do ANYTHING for meth. He will kill for it. In fact... he does. Sometimes the situation is crazy... sometimes because he's paranoid he HAS to kill the people he mugs. (meth does make you paranoid, it also makes you not care.) So there Andy is... dope hungry and needing cash, he's going to die in 2 years... 2 years to continue killing people. It may be a few... maybe a doctor here or a lawyer there. Andy isn't going to save a life, he isn't going to make a child breath again, he isn't going to help you or anyone you know. Andy is going to kill you because the meth will tell him too for his own protection.

Andy's life... it's not precious. I've been around a lot of junkies. The most rewarding thing they will do is clean up and work at McDonalds. It's really depressing but it's true. I've lost a lot of people I have LOVED to junk and what I've realized is that the person I loved... they were dead the minute they started using. It kills me. It does. Every time I've cried in a clinic over some one I've loved... well I left something of myself there. Every E.R I've had to visit... I'm there still somehow because I can't let go. I have however come to realize that my life is worth more than theirs, because I'm not the one who ditched that college education for a needle.

[Skyybird]

I'm so sorry that you have lost so many friends. Drug addiction, crime, weapons and death all do seem to go hand in hand. I have seen it first hand and never been able to quite understand that desperation that leads an addict to do what they do.

But I really must argue the point that life is precious. Every single one of those people who die through violence and crime are still somebody's son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, Father or Mother. Their life has at some time had meaning to somebody.

Last year I attended the funeral of a 30 year old man who I had known since I was 8 years old. He died from a Heroine over dose, he had been an addict for over 15 years. In all the years I have been alive I have never been to a funeral that was so well attended. His family were devastated. This is the family that he had stolen from, the family that had spent years worrying themselves stupid about where he was and what he was doing. He hurt them over and over, but still he was their son, her brother, his cousin, my childhood playmate, my neighbour and despite it all, nobody abandoned him.

However I do agree that help is only sucessful for those who truly want it. There are those who despite everyone's best efforts are simply on a path to self destruction. Can it really be the case that such people do not at least have the human potential to make a change in their lives?

[voxelectronica]

Can it really be the case that such people do not at least have the human potential to make a change in their lives?

No.

Moderate drug users or people who have had a moderate run with drugs can that's true enough. Some people just don't get that far, don't compromise their morals that much and don't damage themselves permanently and may be able to get clean and may end up doing "ok" (not great mind you but ok). Personally I've done more coke than Fleetwood Mac and put it down after awhile because it was boring. I would wake up, find drugs, play video games, go out and stay up. Things I didn't do included crime.


Then there are people who use drugs long term and become hopelessly addicted and go out and commit violent crimes to further their drug use. We aren't talking about party girls here who use their mommy and daddies money (or in my case my gfs parents money) we are talking about hardcore long term street junkies. They have committed themselves to taking from other people.

They were dead to their families long before they were buried. Heroine can make you not human. The problem is that once you've lost that part of you it doesn't just come back. I've seen junkies clean up. Watched them go through therapy and come back to the real world. They aren't anything like the person they were before the drugs. They aren't anything like people who never got that far. Relationships they have with people aren't... the same. They aren't the same as relationships non addicts have with people. It just isn't possible considering the damage that was done both mentally and physically. That precious human life was destroyed by their own hands.

Addiction is something you carry around with you for the rest of your life. It will always be there and always be a part of you. You are forever changed. If you watch someone go from normal every day human through the addiction process you can actually watch them de-evolve. Watch the humanity stripped from them. I've never actually seen someone come back from it with any amount of potential.

This is without even bringing up the actual damage that is done to the brain.

Human potential aside...

Those who die from violence and crime aren't orphans for sure but what about the people that they've killed or could potentially kill. It seems that people are so quick to defend the criminal and have said things like "people who carry guns around are murderers". They say that about people who carry guns around to protect themselves. Is the same not true for that street junkie who needs a fix? It is not the person who defended themselves fault that the potential junkie died. It is the junkies fault. When you carry a weapon with the intent to threaten another humans life for the money in their pocket you are taking the risk that you will die. I wont be sorry for the loss of human life in that exchange. I don't feel that we as a society are losing anything from the junkie who is shot because he was holding a knife to someone.

[MonsterMaster{vg}]

There ARE people in America that believe in Gun control and have not sipped from the National Rifle Association's kool-aid. The story that began this thread was a hopeful story about a much braver man than the idiots that carry around guns thinking that everyone is going to be out to get them. But cynicism reigns supreme nowadays and hope is just something that was reborn.

As an illustration of the fallacy in the gun-toting arguments is the recent case where a man was shot in a movie theater for talking by a guy who claims he shot the man in self-defense. And until we can somehow bring down the gun violence in this country (perpetuated in my humble opinion by promotion from the nuts at the NRA) we have nothing we can promote about preventing crime by shooting and killing someone.

[Duke Cador]

Wouldn't that have been a much better solution, and a simultaneous proof that we all need to have guns at all times.

Hasn't America tried this option, every citizen in Dodge City wearing a gun belt. Maybe if we compare the past 200 hundred years of a gun toting USA and a gun free (largely) Europe it may give a clue as to the road to follow. That said, it is a complex question but as long as selling weapons is a big business and a political lobby there will be problems. Why is there no research into non-lethal weapons. We spend zillions on finding more effective ways to kill and peanuts on finding ways not to kill. Maybe we just enjoy killing.

[TwistedTails]

Ok, give me that soapbox back for a moment.

This is exactly where I thought this thread would go. I stated the reality of your news story and removed myself from the discussion early on because I found the premise that someone must die so that you could have your discussion and prove your moral superiority offensive. People of reason and experience have come in and spoke. No opinions were changed, but of course that is not the purpose of this discussion is it?

This discussion did of course bring out the usual voices, those who think that because a gun did not do the killing it proves that their way is morally superior. Without ever acknowledging that crimes resulting in death continue unabated even under gun control. Criminals will use a weapon, period. Implement gun control and what do you get? Knife crime. Outlaw knives? Bludgeoning will become the next big crime wave. The only way to stop all murderess crime is to eliminate people altogether.

The biggest irritant I have with threads of this nature is it brings out two types of people in particular that bother me. The first is the type that parrot the belittling speech they have been taught by their mentors. Call people who disagree with their opinion "nuts" and "idiots" and accuse them of drinking the "kool-aid" when they don't even realize that they to are drinking the "kool-aid", just from a different cup, served up by others who expect that you should only believe as they do. Then of course we get the people who get their "history" from movies and television. A simple search would educate them that Dodge City as it exists in the movies is fiction.

You and the other proponents of a helpless population should stop and look at that city closely. They were one of the first American experiments in gun control. Once government and law came to the Kansas territory, no guns were allowed in Dodge City proper. The killers came from across the railroad tracks to prey on the unarmed citizens in the more "enlightened" side of the city. Most likely that is where the phrase "from the wrong side of the tracks" originated.

Now in answer to the question you asked of me earlier. No. Mr. Diaz should not have carried a gun that night. It would have been illegal to do so. New York City prohibits the possession of handguns as does the peaceful and crime free ( that is sarcasm for those that miss it ) city of Washington D.C.

In closing I state that I am a free man. I will never disarm so that I may be made subservient to either the "nobles" or the criminals.

Rant completed, you may have your soapbox back.

[denuseri]

Ok, give me that soapbox back for a moment.

This is exactly where I thought this thread would go. I stated the reality of your news story and removed myself from the discussion early on because I found the premise that someone must die so that you could have your discussion and prove your moral superiority offensive. People of reason and experience have come in and spoke. No opinions were changed, but of course that is not the purpose of this discussion is it?

This discussion did of course bring out the usual voices, those who think that because a gun did not do the killing it proves that their way is morally superior. Without ever acknowledging that crimes resulting in death continue unabated even under gun control. Criminals will use a weapon, period. Implement gun control and what do you get? Knife crime. Outlaw knives? Bludgeoning will become the next big crime wave. The only way to stop all murderess crime is to eliminate people altogether.

The biggest irritant I have with threads of this nature is it brings out two types of people in particular that bother me. The first is the type that parrot the belittling speech they have been taught by their mentors. Call people who disagree with their opinion "nuts" and "idiots" and accuse them of drinking the "kool-aid" when they don't even realize that they to are drinking the "kool-aid", just from a different cup, served up by others who expect that you should only believe as they do. Then of course we get the people who get their "history" from movies and television. A simple search would educate them that Dodge City as it exists in the movies is fiction.

You and the other proponents of a helpless population should stop and look at that city closely. They were one of the first American experiments in gun control. Once government and law came to the Kansas territory, no guns were allowed in Dodge City proper. The killers came from across the railroad tracks to prey on the unarmed citizens in the more "enlightened" side of the city. Most likely that is where the phrase "from the wrong side of the tracks" originated.

Now in answer to the question you asked of me earlier. No. Mr. Diaz should not have carried a gun that night. It would have been illegal to do so. New York City prohibits the possession of handguns as does the peaceful and crime free ( that is sarcasm for those that miss it ) city of Washington D.C.

In closing I state that I am a free man. I will never disarm so that I may be made subservient to either the "nobles" or the criminals.

Rant completed, you may have your soapbox back.

I appluad your sound reason Twisted.

I have a license to carry and allmost allways have in my possession a Smith & Wesson 38 Pistol. I am also an excellent shot.

Fourtunately unconstitutional gun control laws such as the one in Washington DC have recently been overturned by the recent ruling of the Surpreme Court.

We have discussed gun control etc many times in various other threads.

The following is taken from page two of another thread on this subject (one of my posts there) and alltough it deals primaraly with using a gun to defend oneself from an attempted rape it also covers other viloent crimes:

<<has taken martial arts before, it helped lil ole me about as much as shooting rubber bands at godzilla

realistically speaking my skill level would have to equal or exceed bruce lees to be able to take down guys that are litterally twice my size even if they had no training

physics are physics

I see many many women told to take matial arts and after a couple classess go about naively with the same sence of security as if they had a gun.

I have also personally heard far too many stories from those same women survivors of rape and other viloent crimes attesting as to how little if any effectivness thier training had in a real life situation defending themselves from single let alone multiple attackers intent on raping them or worse.

Some facts available on statistics if you bother to look them up:

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

For all rapes, woman who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist, and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.”

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm.

The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim.

All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.

(Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)

So why is the anti-gunners' answer to violence is to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, or the right to bear them for self-defense?

??hummmmm??

Could it be thier agenda isnt about defending the law abiding people of the nation from the criminals at all?

Could it be perhaps that they are more conserned with defending thier government from an armed populace and are will to stoop so low as to play on the naivety of the well meaning massess to do it?

Sounds far more likely to me.

Here is a link to the thread containing the above post:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18322

[MMI]

Of course the discussion brought out the people who think gun control is wrong. I do and I wanted the handful of people here who agree to voice their opinion while amusing themselves at the attempts of the pro-gun lobby to justify their position. So far as I am concerned, no-one has come close - except, perhaps, denuseri.

You see, there's no getting away from the fact that, if you have a gun, you must intend to kill someone, and the only possible justification for that is self-defence. Production of a gun in self-defence is justifiable only when you are attacked by someone you know is about to kill you. It is not justifiable for any other reason.

So if you plan to go somewhere where you need to have a gun to "defend" yourself, then the obvious choice is to stay away. Otherwise you have made a positive decision to go there and to kill anybody you want. Doesn't that amount to pre-meditation?

TwistedTails, are you telling me that, after Dodge City became gun free, it was the fault or the foolhardiness of the citizens on the "right" side of the tracks that the killers you referred to came into the town? Not the fault of the killers at all? Maybe they couldn't help themselves, or they had to uphold their constitutional right of self-defence perhaps? You explain it to me.

Denuseri: I have seen those statistics you have quoted before, but as I do not subscribe to the journal in which the research was published, I have not read the paper and I cannot say I understand the conclusions completely. You obviously have the advantage over me: perhaps you could send me a copy? I did find a synopsis of the research on the internet, and I have to rely on that. The summariser appeared to consider the statistics supported your position.

However, I do want to make a couple of observations about the conclusions that have been drawn.

The reasearch appears to have been based on a small number of female students in an American university. I'm not sure university students reflect the whole population of rape victims in USA or even the perpetrators.

But setting that aside, is it not surprising that even 3 men in a hundred go through with the rape when the woman is pointing a gun at them? I should have thought that no attempted rapes would have been completed if a gun was pointed at them. I would have expected a 100% failure to complete under those circumstances, and I consider that this statistic is about as revealing as a survey of the number of falling objects that hit the ground.

I note that the survey also demonstrates that any form of resistance is likely to deter the rapist, and I consider that to be more significant than any further study as to how the resistance was effected, whether a slap across the face, or a bullet in it. To me, the research may justify resistance - any form of resistance, including guns, but the fact remains, a gun should only be used if you are truly in fear of your life.

I imagine it is quite easy for a woman who used a gun to protect herself from rape to show that she really was afraid she would die, but if she wasn't, then she was wrong to use it. If she shot the rapist dead, knowing that she would not have died if she resisted in some other way, she murdered him. But if she has a gun in her possession, isn't she more likely to use it than to scream or run away or protect herself some other way?

I can hear people saying, if she shot the rapist, he damn well got what he deserved. I disagree, and I believe that there is now no juridicition in America that imposes the death penalty for rape, so I am not alone. So people who rejoice in the rapist's death are, in fact, calling for exemplary retribution at the hands of the mob rather than upholding law and order in their society.


As for the suggestion that the haphazzard possession of arms by some citizens guarantees the nation that there will be no more tyranny over the country is simply ludicrous. Besides, I believe the "liberty" was granted to protect the criminal elements of society that foisted a republican government on at least two thirds of the population who did not want it in the first place.




It is hard for me to avoid the equation, no gun control = no civil society, especially when expressed as gun control = civil society. As I have said before, I am vehemently anti-gun/pro-gun control. In other threads, I may be just having fun, but I am sincere about this topic. I know many Americans - and other people too - believe there are circumstances where private gun ownership is justifiable: I cannot. It is beyond my understanding. I believe that the freedom to own guns is an empty freedom. It does not save life, it destroys it. It does not uphold justice, it rides roughshod over it. It does not lead to a stable constitution, it encourages "fringe" lunatics to uphold antiquated liberties. It does not reduce crime, it turns victims into perpetrators and encourages viglanteism and lynch-mob attitudes.

I believe Diaz was phenominally brave and good. What he did was an urban miracle. America has lost control over society because its people seem to believe (ultimately) in taking the law into their own hands. They want to enforce summary justice that makes the executioners feel grand and powerful, at the expense of the law and humanity. They will eventually become the victims of their own reactionary attitudes, however.

[denuseri]

As we established in the pervious thread I mentioned you so obviously have never been raped MMI.

Which by the way in the United States if you are a woman about to be raped and you kill your attacker it is considered justifiable homicide in self deffense in allmost all cases.

If I have a gun it does not in any way shape or form mean I do intend to kill someone at the drop of a hat, but I am prepared to do so if nessesary, if my life is threatened in such a way that I have no other recourse. BIG difference from the way you try to PAINT it MMI.

Plain and simple, gun control laws do not deter criminals in America and many other countries from using guns to commit crimes PERIOD.

They do however deprive the citizens of thier right to defend themselves with appropriately applied force if nessesary.

I also believe Diaz was phenominally brave and good if not a bit foolish. What he did was an urban miracle. Miracle being the opperative world (dont try this at home folks).

America has in no way shape or form lost control over society because its people believe in defending themselves when nessesary. We have laws in our counrty that allow us the freedom to defend ourselves unlike the Brittish, one reason we overthrew thier rule. Thank God/Goddess the Founding Fathers saw fit to make sure we keep this basic unalienable right to defend ourselves when so many others bow in fear to tyranny.

[Thorne]

You see, there's no getting away from the fact that, if you have a gun, you must intend to kill someone, and the only possible justification for that is self-defence. Production of a gun in self-defence is justifiable only when you are attacked by someone you know is about to kill you. It is not justifiable for any other reason.
Displaying a gun does not necessarily mean you intend to kill someone. It should mean that you are ready to kill someone to protect yourself and your family. If I am threatened by a criminal and he turns away when I pull a gun out, I would not just go ahead and shoot him anyway.


So if you plan to go somewhere where you need to have a gun to "defend" yourself, then the obvious choice is to stay away. Otherwise you have made a positive decision to go there and to kill anybody you want. Doesn't that amount to pre-meditation?
And what about those criminals who seek you out? When they break down your doors to gain access to your home? Are you making the decision to kill them? Absurd! You are protecting your home, you person and your family.


But setting that aside, is it not surprising that even 3 men in a hundred go through with the rape when the woman is pointing a gun at them? I should have thought that no attempted rapes would have been completed if a gun was pointed at them. I would have expected a 100% failure to complete under those circumstances, and I consider that this statistic is about as revealing as a survey of the number of falling objects that hit the ground.
Just because a woman has a gun doesn't mean she was able to point it at her attacker in time to stop him. And since most men are physically more powerful than their victims she would be unlikely to be able push him off to give herself the time she needs once he's grappled with her.
But statistics are misleading under the best of circumstances. They can easily be manipulated to "prove" almost anything you want, including the idea that gun control does, or does not, work. Just remember, statistically 100% of the people who drink water are going to die.


I note that the survey also demonstrates that any form of resistance is likely to deter the rapist, and I consider that to be more significant than any further study as to how the resistance was effected, whether a slap across the face, or a bullet in it. To me, the research may justify resistance - any form of resistance, including guns, but the fact remains, a gun should only be used if you are truly in fear of your life.
Rapists are basically cowards, preying upon those they perceive as weaker than themselves in order to feel powerful in their own minds. Resisting them strongly will naturally tend to deter them, since you show them you are more powerful than they had hoped. But it doesn't always work that way, and as far as I'm concerned, any rapist is betting his life that his victim will submit.


I imagine it is quite easy for a woman who used a gun to protect herself from rape to show that she really was afraid she would die, but if she wasn't, then she was wrong to use it. If she shot the rapist dead, knowing that she would not have died if she resisted in some other way, she murdered him. But if she has a gun in her possession, isn't she more likely to use it than to scream or run away or protect herself some other way?
Not being a woman,and not personally knowing anyone who's been raped, I can only presume that any woman who is being attacked will tend to scream and try to run away, even as she is pulling the gun out of her pocket/purse. But regardless, there is no sure way you can be absolutely certain that an attacker is or is not going to kill you. You can, and probably should, assume the worst in order to protect yourself. And if a woman should happen to kill a man who tried to rape her, any jury I was sitting on would never convict her of any crime whatsoever.

I can hear people saying, if she shot the rapist, he damn well got what he deserved. I disagree, and I believe that there is now no juridicition in America that imposes the death penalty for rape, so I am not alone. So people who rejoice in the rapist's death are, in fact, calling for exemplary retribution at the hands of the mob rather than upholding law and order in their society.
There are few jurisdictions in America that still impose the death penalty for much of anything. In those places that do, it is true that rapists are not subject to the death penalty. Unless they kill their victim! So by your standards, the only time a rapist would deserve death is if he killed his victim? Kind of late for her to do anything about that, don't you think?
And I don't know about others but I, for one, would not rejoice in the rapist's death. I would, however, rejoice in his victim's survival, hopefully without having had to actually endure the rape.


It is hard for me to avoid the equation, no gun control = no civil society, especially when expressed as gun control = civil society. As I have said before, I am vehemently anti-gun/pro-gun control.
Except that you don't advocate gun control, but gun bans. You seem to want to remove any method honest, law abiding citizens might have to protect themselves. Gun control is a good thing. Control who can have guns, and make sure that criminals aren't among those who can. And let the government know just who has guns, and which guns they have. That is gun control. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who only want to defend themselves is controlling the wrong end of the stick.

I am not one of those people who believe that every human life is worth saving. There are far too many people who are too stupid or too evil to be allowed to live in a "civilized" society. Fortunately, many of the stupid ones do themselves in (look up the Darwin Awards). The evil ones are far more dangerous. These are the people who believe that they are entitled to take anything they want at whatever cost to their victims, without any shred of conscience. They will attack you without warning, will harm you without reason, will kill you for the loose change in your pocket. They have no respect for your life, or anyone's life but their own. They are the demons of modern society, and if it is "civilized" to allow them to walk freely among us, doing as they will with no fear of reprisal, then I vote for barbarism.

[denuseri]

Well said Thorne, and I really mean it.

[MMI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
You see, there's no getting away from the fact that, if you have a gun, you must intend to kill someone, and the only possible justification for that is self-defence. Production of a gun in self-defence is justifiable only when you are attacked by someone you know is about to kill you. It is not justifiable for any other reason.

Displaying a gun does not necessarily mean you intend to kill someone. It should mean that you are ready to kill someone to protect yourself and your family. If I am threatened by a criminal and he turns away when I pull a gun out, I would not just go ahead and shoot him anyway.

Quite right too. I agree with that entirely: if you have a gun at the time you are attacked, you ought to display it, and if the attacker backs down, you move him on. If he continues to threaten you, you must make a decision: is your life in real and imminent danger? If you can reasonably answer "Yes, I think so," then shoot. I will be the last to criticise. The same if you beat his head open with a handy rock. But if you cannot show that you reasonably believed your life to be in danger, and you fire, then that is manslaughter at the very least. So, here we can find a point of agreement - my only problem is, how come you happened to have a gun ...



Quote:
So if you plan to go somewhere where you need to have a gun to "defend" yourself, then the obvious choice is to stay away. Otherwise you have made a positive decision to go there and to kill anybody you want. Doesn't that amount to pre-meditation?

And what about those criminals who seek you out? When they break down your doors to gain access to your home? Are you making the decision to kill them? Absurd! You are protecting your home, you person and your family.

If you live in such an uncivilised place that there are hoardes of villains out on the prowl looking for propety to smash into and victims to murder then, take my advice, move to a civilised country - Canada's quite handy to the north, and Mexico's to the south. Both seem reasonably pleasant places, but every other person you meet on the street isn't to be feared as a killer.

I do sympathise with you, however. It was like that in this country a thousand years ago, when vikings pillaged and plundered our costal areas.

But, to answer your question, if you pick up a handy gun and display it - however it got there - you are intimating to the intruders that you will kill them: that is a positive decision. It better be a right one, or you're a killer and possibly liable to whatever penalty your state exacts on killers.



Quote:
But setting that aside, is it not surprising that even 3 men in a hundred go through with the rape when the woman is pointing a gun at them? I should have thought that no attempted rapes would have been completed if a gun was pointed at them. I would have expected a 100% failure to complete under those circumstances, and I consider that this statistic is about as revealing as a survey of the number of falling objects that hit the ground.

Just because a woman has a gun doesn't mean she was able to point it at her attacker in time to stop him. And since most men are physically more powerful than their victims she would be unlikely to be able push him off to give herself the time she needs once he's grappled with her.
But statistics are misleading under the best of circumstances. They can easily be manipulated to "prove" almost anything you want, including the idea that gun control does, or does not, work. Just remember, statistically 100% of the people who drink water are going to die.

I'm not sure I follow your argument here. I would suggest that a greater proportion than 3% of rapists are more powerful than their intended victims. But if that's your explanation for the small number of successful rapes where the woman has a gun, then I won't argue with it. I suppose there are some statistics that show that less than 100% of falling objects hit the ground, too.

My point - to speak plainly, is that it is (almost) meaningless to say that 97% of attempted rapes failed where the woman had a gun, and it cerainly does not justify the carrying of a gun to protect yourself from rape, although that it my understanding of the summary I read about the reasearch denuseri quoted. It does not justify the carrying of a gun because the same research showed that any form of resistance will deter the rapist, as to which, see below ...



Quote:
I note that the survey also demonstrates that any form of resistance is likely to deter the rapist, and I consider that to be more significant than any further study as to how the resistance was effected, whether a slap across the face, or a bullet in it. To me, the research may justify resistance - any form of resistance, including guns, but the fact remains, a gun should only be used if you are truly in fear of your life.

Rapists are basically cowards, preying upon those they perceive as weaker than themselves in order to feel powerful in their own minds. Resisting them strongly will naturally tend to deter them, since you show them you are more powerful than they had hoped. But it doesn't always work that way, and as far as I'm concerned, any rapist is betting his life that his victim will submit.

I don't think I can disagree with that. But it justifies nothing.




Quote:
I imagine it is quite easy for a woman who used a gun to protect herself from rape to show that she really was afraid she would die, but if she wasn't, then she was wrong to use it. If she shot the rapist dead, knowing that she would not have died if she resisted in some other way, she murdered him. But if she has a gun in her possession, isn't she more likely to use it than to scream or run away or protect herself some other way?

Not being a woman,and not personally knowing anyone who's been raped, I can only presume that any woman who is being attacked will tend to scream and try to run away, even as she is pulling the gun out of her pocket/purse. But regardless, there is no sure way you can be absolutely certain that an attacker is or is not going to kill you. You can, and probably should, assume the worst in order to protect yourself. And if a woman should happen to kill a man who tried to rape her, any jury I was sitting on would never convict her of any crime whatsoever.

No: it is wrong to make the blanket assumption that everyone is a killer. It's atitudes like that which make Americans afraid of their own shadows. It's why everyone thinks unknown males are likely to be rapists or a child molesters. It the stupid reason advanced by organisations like NRA that everyone is in danger of meeting an armed assassin every time they go out to buy a newspaper, or that a motley crew of gunslingers would be able to prevent an organised coup d'etat. The key is reasonable belief. If it is reasonable for you to believe your life is in jeopardy, you may do anything that is necessary to save it. "Anything" is subject to a requirement to use the minimum force necessary, of course. That is a judgement that can only be made on a case by case basis.



Quote:
I can hear people saying, if she shot the rapist, he damn well got what he deserved. I disagree, and I believe that there is now no juridicition in America that imposes the death penalty for rape, so I am not alone. So people who rejoice in the rapist's death are, in fact, calling for exemplary retribution at the hands of the mob rather than upholding law and order in their society.

There are few jurisdictions in America that still impose the death penalty for much of anything. In those places that do, it is true that rapists are not subject to the death penalty. Unless they kill their victim! So by your standards, the only time a rapist would deserve death is if he killed his victim? Kind of late for her to do anything about that, don't you think?
And I don't know about others but I, for one, would not rejoice in the rapist's death. I would, however, rejoice in his victim's survival, hopefully without having had to actually endure the rape.

And I too would rejoice in her escape/survival. But you misinterpret me, and I have stated my position absolutely clearly many times before, so I suspect your misunderstanding is deliberate. A rapist deserves to be killed if that is the only way the victim reasonably thinks she can prevent herself duing at his hands. If she does that, it would not be too late at all, would it?

However, if the rapist did kill his victim, I would want him to go to gaol for life. I do not support capital punishment for any crime.




Quote:
It is hard for me to avoid the equation, no gun control = no civil society, especially when expressed as gun control = civil society. As I have said before, I am vehemently anti-gun/pro-gun control.

Except that you don't advocate gun control, but gun bans. You seem to want to remove any method honest, law abiding citizens might have to protect themselves. Gun control is a good thing. Control who can have guns, and make sure that criminals aren't among those who can. And let the government know just who has guns, and which guns they have. That is gun control. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who only want to defend themselves is controlling the wrong end of the stick.

I am not one of those people who believe that every human life is worth saving. There are far too many people who are too stupid or too evil to be allowed to live in a "civilized" society. Fortunately, many of the stupid ones do themselves in (look up the Darwin Awards). The evil ones are far more dangerous. These are the people who believe that they are entitled to take anything they want at whatever cost to their victims, without any shred of conscience. They will attack you without warning, will harm you without reason, will kill you for the loose change in your pocket. They have no respect for your life, or anyone's life but their own. They are the demons of modern society, and if it is "civilized" to allow them to walk freely among us, doing as they will with no fear of reprisal, then I vote for barbarism.

My position is, a ban for guns in private hands unless licenced. The licence to be issued to people with a genuine reason: farmers need shotguns for pest-control, for example. Huntsmen need guns to shoot game. I would allow that. The fact that I consider hunting an unspeakably cruel and unnecessary way to amuse yourself is neither here nor there. I would allow competitive shooters to use guns in a designated shooting range. Collectors could have them if they were rendered unusable. Other than that, I see no reason for guns to be in private hands - and there should be severe penalties for possessing them. I would not baulk at sentences of up to life in prison in certain cases.

Private security firms are the same as private individuals, and should not carry arms.

Guns are necessary for the police if they encounter a situation where weapons are being used, and they should be issued in those circumstances only. The army, navy and air forces would be fully armed at all times, obviously.

I believe there are very few human lives that should be destroyed, and they should only be eliminated if there is no alternative. Hitler and Stalin spring to mind as examples. To say that people who are stupid should be exterminated is a very frightening suggestion, and it is just that sort of thing that Hitler actually did.

I agree there are people who will take anything they want regardless of the cost. I don't remember ever meeting anyone who would kill me for it, however. How many have you met? Did you have to kill them to get away? Demons of modern society, maybe, but there are other demons telling you that EVERYONE is just like them and you will die if you turn your back on them. Be careful which devil you finally cast your vote for. Paranoia is the worst devil of all. It ends up devouring itself.

[Thorne]

If you live in such an uncivilised place that there are hoardes of villains out on the prowl looking for propety to smash into and victims to murder then, take my advice, move to a civilised country - Canada's quite handy to the north, and Mexico's to the south. Both seem reasonably pleasant places, but every other person you meet on the street isn't to be feared as a killer.
It doesn't take hoards of villains to threaten someone's life, only one. A person can go through his or her entire life without ever being attacked or even threatened. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to be totally unprepared for it. And from what I've been reading lately, Mexico is even worse. A recently appointed official, supposed to deal with drug gangs, was assassinated on his first day on the job. Police and judges who try to control these gangs are also targeted. I think I'll stay away from there. Canada I'm not familiar with, from a criminal presence point of view, but if there are human beings living there, there is crime as well. And anyone, at anytime, is a possible target for a criminal.


I do sympathise with you, however. It was like that in this country a thousand years ago, when vikings pillaged and plundered our costal areas.
And did your public officials ban swords for their citizens? Wouldn't do to possibly nick a viking ass while trying to protect your own, would it?


I'm not sure I follow your argument here. I would suggest that a greater proportion than 3% of rapists are more powerful than their intended victims. But if that's your explanation for the small number of successful rapes where the woman has a gun, then I won't argue with it.
My point is that statistics are misleading and should be taken with a grain of salt.


No: it is wrong to make the blanket assumption that everyone is a killer. It's atitudes like that which make Americans afraid of their own shadows.
I didn't mean to imply that one should assume everyone is a killer. But it is not unreasonable to assume that someone who is willing to attack you, to rob you, to rape you, would necessarily draw the line at killing you. And I doubt that Americans are any more afraid of their shadows than any other people in the world.


The key is reasonable belief. If it is reasonable for you to believe your life is in jeopardy, you may do anything that is necessary to save it. "Anything" is subject to a requirement to use the minimum force necessary, of course. That is a judgement that can only be made on a case by case basis.
Reasonable by whose standards? If someone is willing to risk his life to attack me, especially after I've shown a weapon, I would have to think it reasonable to assume his intentions are less than honarable. And the minimum force I would then use would be deadly force.



And I too would rejoice in her escape/survival. But you misinterpret me, and I have stated my position absolutely clearly many times before, so I suspect your misunderstanding is deliberate. A rapist deserves to be killed if that is the only way the victim reasonably thinks she can prevent herself duing at his hands. If she does that, it would not be too late at all, would it?
No, I don't believe I was misinterpreting. I understand what you are saying. I disagree with it, wholeheartedly, though. Again, it's a matter of opinion. You believe it absolutely wrong to take another person's life, for any reason other than the incontrovertible belief that your own life is at risk, yet you seem to refuse to admit that there can be such an incontrovertible belief. My feelings are simpler. Any criminal who attacks is threatening harm, in one way or another. And that justifies defending yourself, even with deadly force.
That being said, if you should wound or injure your attacker, such that he runs away or is unable to do you harm, it would not be acceptable to kill him. He has been neutralized, it is up to the law to deal with him.


However, if the rapist did kill his victim, I would want him to go to gaol for life. I do not support capital punishment for any crime.
Yes, I'm aware of your position on this, and I respect you for it. My position is quite different, as you are aware. 'Nuff said.


My position is, a ban for guns in private hands unless licenced.
We agree here, at least...

The licence to be issued to people with a genuine reason: farmers need shotguns for pest-control, for example. Huntsmen need guns to shoot game. I would allow that. The fact that I consider hunting an unspeakably cruel and unnecessary way to amuse yourself is neither here nor there.
... and here, as well. I'm not fond of hunting for the sake of hunting, though I can understand it for the sake of providing food. It's not strictly necessary, in this day and age, perhaps, but it is a valid reason, to my mind. I'm not a hunter myself, either.

I would allow competitive shooters to use guns in a designated shooting range. Collectors could have them if they were rendered unusable. Other than that, I see no reason for guns to be in private hands - and there should be severe penalties for possessing them. I would not baulk at sentences of up to life in prison in certain cases.
Here we are at odds. I believe that any citizen who has a clean record with the police should be allowed to at least be tested for a license to carry a gun, not unlike being tested for a license to drive a car. If they can pass the tests, and can show they are capable of the proper care when using and storing firearms, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to have them. That goes for private security firms, as well. And police should always be armed.
Naturally, in a country where citizens are not allowed to carry firearms, and from things I've read are pretty much banned from defending themselves by any means, there would be little need for the police to carry weapons.


To say that people who are stupid should be exterminated is a very frightening suggestion, and it is just that sort of thing that Hitler actually did.
I did not mean to imply that stupid people should be exterminated, though looking back at my post I can see how someone could reach that conclusion. My point was that there are stupid people who manage to kill themselves off by doing stupid things. This is more a condemnation of their decision-making processes than their intelligence. But either way, I won't mourn their loss.


I agree there are people who will take anything they want regardless of the cost. I don't remember ever meeting anyone who would kill me for it, however. How many have you met? Did you have to kill them to get away?
No, I've never met any, either. I am fortunate to live in an area with relatively low criime rates and I try not to frequent places, such as bars and drug infested areas, where I could be threatened. That does not mean those places don't exist.


Demons of modern society, maybe, but there are other demons telling you that EVERYONE is just like them and you will die if you turn your back on them. Be careful which devil you finally cast your vote for. Paranoia is the worst devil of all. It ends up devouring itself.
I know a young man who did frequent those places. He was beaten nearly to death merely for insulting someone. Four men kicked him repeatedly, while he was down, and even while he was unconscious, and he is now little more than a vegetable in a hospital. I feel sorry for his family, for they have to deal with the results of his stupidity and his attackers' inhumanity. I have little sympathy for him, though. He was a drug addict who put himself at risk. I have no sympathy for his attackers. They are animals who deserve to be put down like rabid dogs. They are not human. They are, indeed, demons.
But I put little stock in the fear-mongers who would have us believe that these people are all over the place, just waiting to take our lives. They are nearly as bad as those attackers, sewing fear and mistrust among people who are simply trying to live their lives safely and peacefully. But that still does not mean we shouldn't be prepared to defend ourselves against those attackers, or even against those fear-mongers!

[denuseri]

Just becuase it seems as though some people didnt unserstand it or clarification is needed :

The United States Government is my scource for the following:

Department of Justice for the United States

Victim studies show that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate is 36%.

But when a woman defends herself with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

For all rapes, woman who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist, and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.”

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm.

The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim.

All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.

(Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)

[MMI]

As I have pointed out, these statistics are selective and in some cases meaningless without further information about the research conducted.

You won't find that information of the Dept Justice website - or at least, I couldn't. But the original work was done, as denuseri points out, in a research paper by F Southwark, published in 2000 in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 8, Issue 5. I do not intend to pay $31-50 just to download this article in order to set those figures in context, but if anyone who does subscribe wants to email me a copy, I would read it with interest.

My point remains unanswered by this article (sofar as I understand it), however. Because 2 out of 3 rape attempts fail (see denuseri's statistics), a gun seems to be "extra" insurance. Thus, carrying one around "just in case" seems to be unnecessary in most everyday situations. Even if you are attacked, you are more likely than not to escape: twice as likely, in fact.

A gun (or any other weapon) should only be used for self-defence if that is the minimum amount of force necessary to remove a threat to your own life. If you use it when it is not necessary, you are committing a crime yourself. Maximum force for maximum protection is not an option, and it is not for you to make an example of someone: that it the job of the courts.

I do not consider the statistics quoted justify the possession of guns, and to use it as "proof" of their effectiveness is misleading and reckless because of the possible consequences. It is likely to be excessive force in most cases to kill an intending rapist, which is what this research seems to advocate.

[denuseri]

Sorry my boolean search includes my Universities ability to give me access to some web sites that are controlled or restricted for the general public. But just for giggles sake I did another search here from home with google and found some interesting things




According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

The FBI stated that 66% of 16,137 murders are committed with firearms.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
obtained from an illegal source such as for family, friends, or a street buy, 80%

And from the:
U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice Statistics:

On average about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property.

Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft.

Where as offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000
violent crimes as measured by the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS),

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who also had a firearm.

Any I way I add it up from any reputable scource it comes up the same for me.

Criminals get the vast majority of thier firearms from illegal scources (80%).

People that defend themselves with a fire arm have a much larger chance of survival compared to those that do not.

IMHO the reliability of an objective scource (especially a .gov or .edu scource from a boolean search of acredited rescources) isnt in question nor is thier "selective and meaningless statistics".

Of course I can understand why gun control advocates wish to say ( given the wieght of those statistics that didnt support thier argument) that the numbers are meaningless or selective..

[MMI]

Any I way I add it up from any reputable scource it comes up the same for me.

It's not your arithmetic I have trouble with. I think I have hinted enough that I have no sympathy for anyone who receives rough justice as a result of his misdeeds. What I am beating my particular drum about is, firearms are so dangerous they should only be allowed to be handled by specific people: the armed forces, the police in incidents where firearms are being/may be used, and private citizens who can satisfy stringent licensing rules.

I do not doubt any of the figures you have quoted (and I saw the ones you have included in your last message while I was looking for the Southwark article). It confirms that there is a lot of gun crime in USA, but I'm not so sure it justifies the habitual carrying of guns for self-protection, nor even private ownership of guns. My eye was caught by the footnote which indicates that in 65% of the incidents where victims of crime defended themselves with a gun, the offender was unarmed or not armed with a gun. That's almost exactly two out of every three times where excessive force was apparently used, and that could - should - turn the "victim" into the criminal.

I've never understood what a boolean search is - I can't even pronounce the word! - and I've never challenged the veracity of the statistics you quoted: I can't, and I have to assumed they were rigorously checked before publication. It's not what the statistics said, but the interpretation of those figures that worries me, because I believe the research might have been limited, and that some of the facts you quoted mght have been interpreted differently from the way they were presented if the whole article was available.

For example, the article appears to conclude that people who defend themselves with guns are likely to escape an attack with little or no injury. If that's what the research proves, then so be it, but if it is then presented to support suggestions that all attackers should be repelled by armed force, I believe the information is being misapplied, and is in fact encouraging the excessive, and therefore illegal, use of firearms as a means of defence.


Criminals get the vast majority of their firearms from illegal scources (80%).

I know ... it's an even higher proportion over here. But that's no reason to abandon gun control: it's a reason to tighten it.


People that defend themselves with a fire arm have a much larger chance of survival compared to those that do not.

I think that is self-evident, but it does not mean an unarmed victim does not have a good chance of survival anyway.


IMHO the reliability of an objective scource (especially a .gov or .edu scource from a boolean search of acredited rescources) isnt in question nor is thier "selective and meaningless statistics".

Of course I can understand why gun control advocates wish to say ( given the wieght of those statistics that didnt support thier argument) that the numbers are meaningless or selective..

" ... selective and meaningless without further information ..."

Perhaps my comments above explain why I said it

[denuseri]

It's not your arithmetic I have trouble with. I think I have hinted enough that I have no sympathy for anyone who receives rough justice as a result of his misdeeds. What I am beating my particular drum about is, firearms are so dangerous they should only be allowed to be handled by specific people: the armed forces, the police in incidents where firearms are being/may be used, and private citizens who can satisfy stringent licensing rules. (which I do as I have a license to carry)

I do not doubt any of the figures you have quoted (and I saw the ones you have included in your last message while I was looking for the Southwark article). It confirms that there is a lot of gun crime in USA, (and even more in a lot of countries that fully ban private citezens owning weapons or where the state has no control at all in third world countries etc where having a gun gives you license to be a thug) but I'm not so sure it justifies the habitual carrying of guns for self-protection, (if I dont have it with me when I need it whats the point of owning it at all?) nor even private ownership of guns. (Fortunately here I and the Surpreme Court, Constitution and Founding Fathers of my Government disagree with you.) My eye was caught by the footnote which indicates that in 65% of the incidents where victims of crime defended themselves with a gun, the offender was unarmed or not armed with a gun. That's almost exactly two out of every three times where excessive force (if it was escessive the statistic would have put the victum into the catagory of a crimminal and not be listed as it was but as you can see it didnt say excessive it said they confronted an ofender who was attacking them) was apparently used, and that could - should - turn the "victim" into the criminal.

I've never understood what a boolean search is ( A Boolean Searches allow you to combine words and phrases using the words AND, OR, NOT and NEAR (otherwise known as Boolean operators) to limit, widen, or define your search. Most Internet search engines and Web directories default to these Boolean search parameters anyway, but a good Web searcher should know how to use basic Boolean operators. Search engines such as Teoma allow you to search for date last modified and a variety of other advanced features. Google allows ~ to search for synonyms. The Government, Libraries, Universities and other academically minded proffessions have access to special data bases to use in conjuction with a boolean search that provide a higher degree of accurate or verifiable information.)

I can't even pronounce the word! - (its pronounced Bu-Lee-Anne) and I've never challenged the veracity of the statistics you quoted: I can't, and I have to assumed they were rigorously checked before publication. It's not what the statistics said, but the interpretation of those figures that worries me, because I believe the research might have been limited, and that some of the facts you quoted mght have been interpreted differently from the way they were presented if the whole article was available. (other than the Southwick Paper{the figures of which I double checked on my own} its not an article but actual official Department of Justice figues on file for anyone that wants to look them up)

For example, the article appears to conclude that people who defend themselves with guns are likely to escape an attack with little or no injury. If that's what the research proves, then so be it, (Plain and simply it is your odds of surviving unscathed are remarkably higher than if you had tried to defend yourself through other means or not at all, a fact that the anti-gun lobbies have gone to great lengths to put down and used thier influence to keep the general public from being made openly aware of becuase to figure it out you eaither have to be willing to reaserch it or be in law enforcement) but if it is then presented to support suggestions that all attackers should be repelled by armed force, I believe the information is being misapplied, and is in fact encouraging the excessive, and therefore illegal, use of firearms as a means of defence. (not at all it is encouraging/ I am encouraging: the legal use of firearms to defend oneself with appropriate force to the situation as determined by the United States Legal System!)



I know ... it's an even higher proportion over here. But that's no reason to abandon gun control: it's a reason to tighten it. (To what extent? To the extreme of banning guns entirely or only allowing the government to own them legally outside of a severly limited portion of the populace? So that only criminals will have such weapons? Since crimes are still committed in all countries regardless of weather or not they ban or have laws regulating gun ownership and a gun is your BEST form of defense, the only conclusion I can fathom from such logic is that you want -like the anti gun lobbyist eaither out of naivety or by design - the law abiding population involved to be eaither defensless or extremely limited in thier ability to defend themselves or thier loved ones and property from harm.)


I think that is self-evident, but it does not mean an unarmed victim does not have a good chance of survival anyway. (Good chance? {trys not to spit up my coffee} By far a better chance if they had been armed? I don't like to gamble with my life in such a manner. I would like the best possible odds on my side if in a situation where I am going to be possibly victumized by perpertrators intending to commit a violent crime, especially since I know what its like to survive as the helpless victum of heinous and unspeakable acts that I nor my loved ones effected by proximity to me, will never fully recover from and carry as a burden for the rest of our natural lives.)


" ... selective and meaningless without further information ..." (what more information do you need? Does some group of monsters have to rape and torture you for close to three months for you to figure it out too? I once thought as you did too btw)

Perhaps my comments above explain why I said it

Sadly what the only thing your comments (and those of too many others)have explained to me is that no ammount of logic or reason will convince a certian segment of the populace that they are being screwed over bigtime like sheep to slaughter. That when they believe (with an ironically religious like zealotry) the spew that the anti-gun lobby and thier partners in crime have been diligently spoon feeding them (like so many comunion waffers) they are really kneeling at the altar of a false utopian god. A god who's sole purpose is to eventually usher in the tyranny of a so called socialist totalitarian regime by cowing the people and robbing them of thier natural right to defend themselves were by ignorace or design.

[Thorne]

but it does not mean an unarmed victim does not have a good chance of survival anyway.
All I can picture here is a soldier being told that he shouldn't dig a foxhole becuase he might damage the garden, and he'll "have a good chance of survival without it anyway."

Of course, he'll have a better chance with the foxhole, and to hell with the garden!


My eye was caught by the footnote which indicates that in 65% of the incidents where victims of crime defended themselves with a gun, the offender was unarmed or not armed with a gun. That's almost exactly two out of every three times where excessive force was apparently used, and that could - should - turn the "victim" into the criminal.
Defending one's self with a gun does not necessarily mean that they fired the weapon, only that they were able to deter the attacker with it. And that's the whole point, really. Nobody with any sanity really wants to kill another person, even an attacker, unless forced into it. And defending yourself from bodily harm, or mental harm, or even property loss, is the right of every person.
Personally, if I am attacked, for whatever reason, I would rather have a gun handy and find out the criminal is unarmed, than for the opposite to be true. And as denuseri so clearly points out, the emotional and mental damage which can accompany an attack may be far more debilitating than any physical damage which the attacker might have inflicted. I would rather spend the rest of my life knowing that I stopped a criminal from attacking me and my loved ones, and stopped him from attacking countless other victims over the course of his life, than to have to live with the consequences of doing nothing and letting him do what he will.

[Belgarold]

Sadly what the only thing your comments (and those of too many others)have explained to me is that no ammount of logic or reason will convince a certian segment of the populace that they are being screwed over bigtime like sheep to slaughter. That when they believe (with an ironically religious like zealotry) the spew that the anti-gun lobby and thier partners in crime have been diligently spoon feeding them (like so many comunion waffers) they are really kneeling at the altar of a false utopian god. A god who's sole purpose is to eventually usher in the tyranny of a so called socialist totalitarian regime by cowing the people and robbing them of thier natural right to defend themselves were by ignorace or design.

I would be very careful about making personal attacks in the thread, it is frowned upon here. And your rabid attack of gun-control proponents simply serves to symbolize the stereotypes of those against ANY kind of gun control.

MMI has said that the gun-control he sees is not to the degree that you are predicting, and most gun-control advocates do not adhere to. Mongering fear is "the spew" that the NRA have been 'spoon-feeding' to their members and their lobbyists for years. And I need to ask a question, "Is it criminal to want gun control?" I wonder when that law came into being.

[denuseri]

<<is simply not going to respond to the off topic portions of other peoples posts.

Gun control within reason is fine.

Gun control that severaly hampers the population's will to defend itself is not desireable.

[Belgarold]

I am not directing this at anyone in particular so please do not P.M. me asking why I am attacking, that is not my intention.

But rereading this thread I want to ask a question of everyone involved. I believe that we have gotten far afield from the point of this thread.

A wonderful anecdote about a courageous and amazing human being turning the tables on a desperate man that turned to crime has turned into, to me, a dirty argument about guns and gun control.

This is very sad to me. The is a wonderful story of triumph over violence and crime. And, yes, this type of happy ending doesn't come along very often but that is no reason to cynically dismiss it.

And what if the man held the fear of being attacked in his mind and held a gun. Two people would have been destroyed that day. Killing another human is as destructive as a bullet to the heart (or should be) and the desperate man would be dead.

But instead we all (and I am putting myself in this category as well) should be ashamed. Instead of celebrating a human success story we use it as a bully pulpit for a political slugfest about guns.

That I find very sad.

Humbly I just wish to thank MMI for the story. It gave me hope and the 'victim' is one of the most courageous men I have ever heard about. I applaud him.

[denuseri]

Looking at post 4 where the threads author posted a clairification I fail to see where this thread has went far afield at all.

But I do agree with Belgarold that it is a wonderful story of kindness, a down right miracle if you believe in such things that all turned out the way they did for both parties and that we should all thank MMI for bringing it to our attention even if it was done under the pretense of opening up a debate.

[MMI]

I would be very careful about making personal attacks in the thread, it is frowned upon here...

... And I need to ask a question, "Is it criminal to want gun control?" I wonder when that law came into being.

I agree the story was a wonderful one and Diaz deserves some real form of recognition, a knighthood, perhaps. As for your comments about the NRA, I couldn’t agree more. I suspect even a lot of people who support widespread gun-ownership shudder when they read some of the crap the NRA peddles. As to your question, it’s certainly not criminal to want to control guns in the UK, and we aren’t paranoid about walking through towns and cities unarmed. There are places we avoid, and that’s just as effective a means of defence as packing heat.

But, alas, denuseri has found me out as I knew I would be. I started this thread knowing it would cause emotions to run hot, as mine do, over gun control. I think this is an important issue and it cannot be discussed too often if opinions are to be changed, or moulded, or reinforced. I apologise if my subterfuge has been misinterpreted

If I am attacked personally as a result, so what? I'm a big boy. I’ll endeavour not to make personal attacks on anyone here, too, although I can be very sarcastic at times, and I suppose that’s almost as offensive as a personal attack.

I also know people here are drawing upon personal experiences which cannot help but influence their positions. Sometimes they could feel that what is being said here is totally insensitive and so far removed from reality as to have no bearing on life as we know it. So far as I can see, most, if not all posts have been kept on an impersonal and hypothetical level.

Besides I have locked horns with people here on several occasions on this and other topics. We may argue vehemently, but I'm sure we'd be prepared to stand each other a drink at the bar if we met. My round. What are you all having?

Now ... back to the argument ...

I have tried to find a summary of the laws in America relating to the use of guns for self-defence. One of the problems I have encountered, obviously, is that there are fifty states and the Capital District … 51 legal systems! So I told myself the job was done when I found this summary issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services -

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
…
Summary
1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument, even if it isn't loaded or you never intend to use it.
2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.
• Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
• Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
• If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."
4. Never carry your concealed weapon into any place where the statute prohibits carrying it.
This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

I know the above isn’t complete by any means, but nevertheless, I have noticed that, in a place where it is legal to carry concealed weapons it is felt necessary to issue warnings about the exact same things that I have used to support my argument that guns should be controlled: you can only use “deadly force” if you are in fear for your own life, or another person’s; and if you shoot in self-defence, you’d better make sure you are right. Also, a gun does not entitle you to be a vigilante … and so on.

[denuseri]

Most all of the following I got from Wikki:

Its just FYI.

In the United States, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. The choice of permitted weapons depends on the state; some states restrict the weapons to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or martial arts weapons to be carried.

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) is a more generalized term. Various states give different terms for licenses or permits to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), and similar, with at least one exception, Tennessee, which issues a "Handgun Carry Permit," since state law does not require a person with a permit to carry the handgun concealed.

Although the current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition, no state which has adopted a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law has reversed its decision. As of February 2008, 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and all but 6 provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction. The District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976; this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the United States Supreme Court.

Some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course, which includes a classroom at a minimum. Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. Such courses are often completed in one to two days. The classroom topics typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon.

Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. Even when self-defense is justified there can be serious civil liabilities related to self-defense. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified. Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. However, a majority of states who allow concealed or open carry forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.

During the range portion of the course the applicant typically learns and demonstrates safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency. Some states (e.g., Florida) recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. Such states will allow a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.

"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws have been hotly contested. Opponents claim these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, as only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property. It is also in fact harmful to otherwise lawfully-carrying individuals, as concealed-carry licensees who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law, with a possible consequence of the revocation of their ability to carry concealed or to others who may decide to leave the firearm locked in their vehicle, increasing the chance that it will be stolen.

[U]Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.

I am curious as to what exactly the laws conserning guns in Great Brittian and other countries are?

Also what are the demographics of crime rates there from the laymans prospective as a counterpoint since it seems that when we talk gun control the area of focus is allways the United States.

How much crime is committed and how much is resisted and by what means?

The "turn the other cheek'/ satyagahra method of dealing with those who would harm us is unfortunatly only as effective as the compassion of the aggressor permits.

[Thorne]

MMI has said that the gun-control he sees is not to the degree that you are predicting, and most gun-control advocates do not adhere to. Mongering fear is "the spew" that the NRA have been 'spoon-feeding' to their members and their lobbyists for years. And I need to ask a question, "Is it criminal to want gun control?" I wonder when that law came into being.
No, it is not criminal to want real gun control, as opposed to actually banning guns for all but a very select few, as proposed by MMI. Gun control means just that: controlling who can own firearms. But limiting it to only the military, some police and a few farmers is not control, but banning. That leaves the average citizen without any means of self defense other than their hands and edged weapons. And from articles I've seen, in England it is illegal even to use those. Self defense, it seems, is against the law there.
One has to remember that any law, whether to ban weapons or to prohibit jaywalking, are only effective when people obey them. Criminals, by definition, do not worry about breaking the law. They do it as a matter of course. So believing that banning guns will result in eliminating those weapons which criminals have, or may have, is naive at best. All that does is reassure the criminals that their victims are unlikely to have any means of protecting themselves, thereby making it easier, and safer, for the criminals to do their things.

[MMI]

I only have an outline knowledge of the actual laws in place here, but I shall immediately embark on the necessary research.

Meanwhile, as I currently understand the law, you may apply for a shotgun licence or a firearms licence if you can provide to references from reputable people (who may be investigsted before the licence is approved), have a clean record and can demonstrate you have a legitimate reason to have a gun. Farmers can obtain the shotgun licence fairly easily as they can show they need it for pest control. People who work in hunting jobs, or who come from a family with known hunting connections are also likely to be able to demonstrate a reason. Guns must be kept in secure lockers or cupboards, which will be inspected before the licence is issued and upon every renewal. If a gun is not being used for its intended purpose, it must be locked away in that cupboard.

A policeman may carry a gun if he is specifically authorised to do so, while he is on duty, and appropriately trained - with refreshers every couple of months.

Self defence is not considered a valid reason to own one. One has to understand that we do not live in fear of each other. We do not believe there are killers waiting around every corner, about to break into our house, rape our daughters and kill our sons. If we pass a stranger on the street, we do not worry that he is about to point the barrel of a gun up our nostrils while he demands our watches, mobile phones and wallets. There are violent people among us, sure, but few of them are armed with guns; quite a lot are armed with knives. (It is illegal to carry an offensive weapon (including knives - from hunting knives to penknives - cricket bats, iron bars, screwdrivers and chisels, or anything else you can hurt or maim with ... a pencil perhaps, if it is used that way). We only consider self-defence is a relevant argument if we are facing an attacker, and believe an attack on our life is imminent. If we contemplate an attack, and then deliberately go out to confront the attacker, we are in danger of committing the same crime ourselves. Having a weapon "just in case" you are attacked isn't self-defence, it's arguably making preparations to commit an assault yourself, because, if you foresee the possibility of attack, you can take steps to avoid it.

As for the law on self-defence in England, the following is an interesting starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law.

[denuseri]

One has to understand that we do not live in fear of each other. We do not believe there are killers waiting around every corner, about to break into our house, rape our daughters and kill our sons. If we pass a stranger on the street, we do not worry that he is about to point the barrel of a gun up our nostrils while he demands our watches, mobile phones and wallets. There are violent people among us, sure, but few of them are armed with guns; quite a lot are armed with knives. (It is illegal to carry an offensive weapon (including knives - from hunting knives to penknives - cricket bats, iron bars, screwdrivers and chisels, or anything else you can hurt or maim with ... a pencil perhaps, if it is used that way). We only consider self-defence is a relevant argument if we are facing an attacker, and believe an attack on our life is imminent. If we contemplate an attack, and then deliberately go out to confront the attacker, we are in danger of committing the same crime ourselves. Having a weapon "just in case" you are attacked isn't self-defence, it's arguably making preparations to commit an assault yourself, because, if you foresee the possibility of attack, you can take steps to avoid it.



Sounds much the same as it is here in the states for the most part despite what appearences the media may portray to the world at large.

[Thorne]

Sounds much the same as it is here in the states for the most part despite what appearences the media may portray to the world at large.

I agree. Between the "news" media braying about street violence and Hollywood's fictional portrayals, I fear that much of the rest of the world believes that MMI's portrayal of American's on the street is more or less accurate. In fact, except in very specific areas, it's about as far from the truth as one can get.
Certainly in the inner cities, where gang's roam the streets and drugs and prostitution are rampant, you can feel as if you are taking your life in your hands just by walking on the sidewalk. But in the average community there is no such fear of our neighbors or random people on the street.


There are violent people among us, sure, but few of them are armed with guns; quite a lot are armed with knives. (It is illegal to carry an offensive weapon (including knives - from hunting knives to penknives - cricket bats, iron bars, screwdrivers and chisels, or anything else you can hurt or maim with ... a pencil perhaps, if it is used that way).
There are violent people among us here, too, even in the relatively safe communities. Much of this is because of the rampant use of drugs and, unfortunately, many (not most) of these violent people have access to illegal weapons. And like in Britain, anything which can injure someone can be considered a deadly or offensive weapon.


We only consider self-defence is a relevant argument if we are facing an attacker, and believe an attack on our life is imminent. If we contemplate an attack, and then deliberately go out to confront the attacker, we are in danger of committing the same crime ourselves.
And the same is true here.


Having a weapon "just in case" you are attacked isn't self-defence, it's arguably making preparations to commit an assault yourself, because, if you foresee the possibility of attack, you can take steps to avoid it.
Here I must disagree, respectfully. Having a weapon as a deterrent is the ultimate in self-defense. It's the reason why nations maintain military forces. It's the reason for police patrols. It's the reason we get inoculations for polio, measles, mumps, and a host of other diseases.
And certainly, in most cases, one can take steps to avoid attacks, such as staying away from high crime areas (unless you have to live there for economic reasons) or keeping your doors locked at night. These are all good ideas, too. But they are not always sufficient. Even in the best and safest communities, crimes can, and do, occur. Being prepared is not being paranoid, it's just being prepared. And being armed, whether with a gun, a knife or pepper spray, does not mean you intend or even want to have to use them. It only means that you are prepared to use them if necessary.

[MMI]

Hmmm ... we're moving towards a consensus ... where's the fun in that? ;)

I wanted you to say, "It isn't so! America isn't like that" But you didn't. So I had to accept you really believed you lived in a highly dangerous society and were under constant threat. After all, you're there, and I'm not.

The true position is (I think) that America and Britain are remarkably safe places for the vast majority of its citizens to live in. Many may never have seen an unholstered gun or heard a shot fired in anger. There's violence on the fringes, but it's not likely to affect most citizens, and if it does, then it's only on a rare occasion. Unfortunate for the few who are caught up in the violence, possibly tragic, even, but on the grand scale, barely noticeable.

So, if we are mainstream citizens, do we take steps to protect ourselves? Yes, certainly. We can arm ourselves. Or we can stay away.

If we arm ourselves and walk into the lion's den, can we then be heard to say we are innocent victims?

But what if members of the violent underworld go out looking for unarmed people to rob rape and kill? Should we be prevented from defending ourselves. To me, the answer is clear. No. You should not be prevented from defending yourself. In fact you may do whatever is necessary - but no more than necessary - to protect yourself. In England, self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder, but it is no defence if excesive force is used. For example, during the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland (NI laws are similar to English laws in this respect) a British soldier shot three times at the windscreen of a car that was speeding towards a road block he was manning. As the car crashed through the road block and sped away, the soldier fired a fourth shot through the rear window, killing the driver. At his trial, it was held that the first three shots were fired in self-defence, and if the driver had been killed by one of those shots, the soldier would have been exonerated: but the fourth shot was murder.

It is legitimate to use a gun in self-defence where you are facing a threat to your own life, but if you use a gun where there is no threat to your life, then you have gone too far. Maximum deterrence is only appropriate in a few limited circumstances.

And if you shoot an unarmed intruder by accident or mistake, you cannot claim self defence. All the more so if an innocent bystander is hit.

Furthermore, displaying a gun to an intruder is an implicit threat that you will use it, and this could cause him to legitimately fear for his own life, even if you do not intend to fire. If he shoots you first, he can claim self-defence and walk free.

So, my question now is this. If we live in a "safe" society, and, furthermore, the laws on self-defence are such that it is very easy to become the assailant rather than a victim defnding himself, why do we need to deliberately arm ourselves with guns? Or anything else for that matter. After all, we have police forces to protect us, don't we? And, by and large, don't they keep our streets safe? OK, they might not be around when a violent crime is actually being committed, but I don't think we pay them enough to be able to see into the future and to stop crimes before they are committed. While we are waiting for them to arrive, we must fend for ourselves as best we can, and I admit a gun could come in handy.

But the possibiity of such an incident affecting any particular citizen is remote (and for most people it would never happen), and so widespead gun-ownership to meet such a contingency would be over-reacting. A balance has to be struck between the safety of an individual and what we call "the public good". We consider freely available weapons to be contrary to the public good.

[Thorne]

So, if we are mainstream citizens, do we take steps to protect ourselves? Yes, certainly. We can arm ourselves. Or we can stay away.

If we arm ourselves and walk into the lion's den, can we then be heard to say we are innocent victims?
There are times when walking near the lion's den is necessary. For better or worse, the main courthouse and police department in my town are adjacent to the worst areas, so anyone having business there must get close to those areas. Not enough to get paranoid about, but certainly enough to keep you on your toes.
And, as you note below, sometimes the lions come looking for fresher meat!


But what if members of the violent underworld go out looking for unarmed people to rob rape and kill? Should we be prevented from defending ourselves. To me, the answer is clear. No. You should not be prevented from defending yourself. In fact you may do whatever is necessary - but no more than necessary - to protect yourself.

It is legitimate to use a gun in self-defence where you are facing a threat to your own life, but if you use a gun where there is no threat to your life, then you have gone too far. Maximum deterrence is only appropriate in a few limited circumstances.
And once again, we agree. But how can someone who was not present determine whether or not a victim had a justifiable fear for his life?


And if you shoot an unarmed intruder by accident or mistake, you cannot claim self defence. All the more so if an innocent bystander is hit.
I'm not so sure about the unarmed intruder. Any intruder can be a threat unless he's physically incapable of attacking you. As I mentioned in a previous post, bare hands and shoes can do just as much damage as a knife or a gun, just not as quickly.
But hitting an innocent bystander is bad news all around, which is why gun owners must be required to learn how to handle their weapons, to minimize the risk of such a tragedy.


Furthermore, displaying a gun to an intruder is an implicit threat that you will use it, and this could cause him to legitimately fear for his own life, even if you do not intend to fire. If he shoots you first, he can claim self-defence and walk free.
If he attacked you on the street and managed to kill you, then he might be able to claim that you attacked him and get away with it. If he breaks into your home, or your place of business, he has already committed a felony, making him liable for all consequences.


But the possibiity of such an incident affecting any particular citizen is remote (and for most people it would never happen), and so widespead gun-ownership to meet such a contingency would be over-reacting.
This just seems counter-intuitive to me. It's like saying: The chances of falling down a flight of stairs is remote, so why bother with handrails? Or the chance of catching an STD is remote, so why bother with a condom? Regardless of how remote any possibility is, there is always that one chance. And I, for one, would rather be prepared for that remote chance than to have to explain to my children why I couldn't prevent their mother from being raped and killed by an "unarmed intruder"!


A balance has to be struck between the safety of an individual and what we call "the public good". We consider freely available weapons to be contrary to the public good.
Ah, the old "Kobiashi Maru" defense: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Which may be admirable, unless you're one of the few.
And I, at least, am not promoting "freely" available weapons, but controlled, licensed and regulated ownership of guns.
And in my opinion, criminals having to worry about law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves with deadly force is in the public good.

[Thorne]

I've separated this from the rest of your post because I feel it deserves special attention.

during the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland (NI laws are similar to English laws in this respect) a British soldier shot three times at the windscreen of a car that was speeding towards a road block he was manning. As the car crashed through the road block and sped away, the soldier fired a fourth shot through the rear window, killing the driver. At his trial, it was held that the first three shots were fired in self-defence, and if the driver had been killed by one of those shots, the soldier would have been exonerated: but the fourth shot was murder.
Not having all the facts of this case I can only judge based on my own feelings, but this just seems wrong to me.
I must assume that the soldier was manning the barricade for a reason, probably to prevent the free movement of IRA terrorists. When the car sped towards the barricade, and the soldier, the driver was attacking a duly authorized representative of the law, using a deadly weapon (the car). This is a felony, in my book, and the soldier is justified, as you and the courts noted, in firing at the vehicle.
When the car broke through the barricade, even though it was no longer aimed at the soldier, the driver was still committing a felony and could be considered to be a danger to the public. (If he's willing to break down a barrier manned by an armed soldier, stopping for a little old lady in a crosswalk probably wouldn't be high on his list of priorities.)
It's my opinion that the soldier was performing his duty by trying to stop this criminal, even using deadly force. An average citizen, not being tasked with defending the public, might be considered to have acted wrongly, but not this soldier. He was screwed by the very system he was trying to defend.

This reminds me of another item I read regarding British justice. (I can't find the article anymore, but you may have heard it.) As I recall it, a British citizen was attacked in his home, possibly by a drug-crazed individual, and he defended himself with a knife. The attacker was wounded, but not killed. The citizen was arrested, tried and convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on his attacker! As I remember the article, the victim's prison sentence was longer than that of the attacker! Where's the justice in that? That tells me that the British government is more worried about its citizens having the balls to stand up for themselves than they are about fighting real crime.

[MMI]

Can't find that case, but what's your opinion about this one?

From the BBC News website on 30/01/2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7860347.stm


Neighbour jailed for sword death

A man who killed his neighbour with a samurai sword in a row over a football has been jailed for 11 years for manslaughter.

Father-of-three David Martin, 40, was killed by Gary Kelly, 38, in Mitcham, south-west London, last January.

The Old Bailey heard Mr Martin had earlier intervened when a 10-year-old boy said his two friends refused to return his ball.

He was then attacked in Kelly's front garden in Rutter Gardens.

The Old Bailey had been told the incident was triggered when the boy telephoned Mr Martin, who heard him cry out in pain after being kicked.

"The boy decided to leave the football game and wanted to take his football with him," said Edward Brown QC, prosecuting.

"His friends, however, decided not to give him his ball back, teased him and played pig in the middle with him, and the like."

Mr Martin went to help and had picked up a bicycle belonging to one of the friends, and had also grabbed a boy by the scruff of the neck, the court heard.

Kelly, who had been drinking and smoking cannabis, and had nothing to do with the boys, came out of his house and threatened Mr Martin with a beer bottle.

Mr Martin returned home and took a piece of wood, used as a parrot perch, and headed back to Kelly's property.

Kelly emerged with the sword and part of a snooker cue which he used to attack Mr Martin in the front garden, said Mr Brown.

Mr Martin died when one of his major heart blood vessels was cut.

Kelly told the court he acted in self-defence.

Judge Christopher Moss said to Kelly: "You had lost your self-control by reason of provocation.

"Your use of the sword was quite deliberate."

Mr Martin's wife, Angela, had told the court in an impact statement: "It feels like my heart has been ripped out and part of me is missing."


... Although I've just discovered this one, which I understand is a leading case here regarding the use of weapons in self defence. This interesting fact here is that the intruders were armed with guns, while the victim-turned-killer had only a sword, but a lethal weapon neverthless.

But the principle to be drawn out of the decision is that, whatever the situation, you must act with moderation and self control if you are going to plead self-defence to justify your use of violence.

R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349: The defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

(Wikipedia: Self-defence in English Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law)

[MMI]

And I've just found this on the UK Law Commission's website, which looks very learned indeed, and I look forward to reading it myself shortly. You'll see it covers several jurisdicitions, but not England - although Scottish Law is reviewed:

The Law of Murder: Overseas Comparative Studies
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/comparative_studies.pdf

Enjoy ...

[Thorne]

Can't find that case, but what's your opinion about this one?
In this case I would probably have to agree with the court. There is little evidence of self-defense in the story as posted. The swordsman, though still on his property, had to come out of his house to confront his "attacker" and appears to have been just as provocative as his victim. They were both wrong, but Kelly is still alive. That's manslaughter, at least.


... Although I've just discovered this one, which I understand is a leading case here regarding the use of weapons in self defence. This interesting fact here is that the intruders were armed with guns, while the victim-turned-killer had only a sword, but a lethal weapon neverthless....
This one's a little more ambiguous, but it does appear that the sword wielder went too far. If he had killed his attacker with a single stroke I would have to say it was justified. But having sliced him several times, presumably after he'd been disabled, puts a different light on things. Again, barring evidence to the contrary, he went too far.

What's unusual, though, is that it's usually the guy who brings a knife (or sword) to a gunfight that winds up dead. I guess British criminals just aren't as proficient with guns as their American counterparts.
Maybe that's a good thing!

[Thorne]

Enjoy ...
:eek:
You're kidding, right? One thing I've never been able to master is legalese. Just trying to read the first paragraph had my eyeballs turning inside out. Anybody have an English translation?

[MMI]

Well, I got further than you ... a few pages ... but then I lost the will to live ...

[Thorne]

Well, I got further than you ... a few pages ... but then I lost the will to live ...

Now, don't you wish you had a gun? So you could shoot yourself? Or perhaps the guy who wrote that crap?