"The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals."

[Thorne]

Excellent! We have very strict gun control laws in the UK...so strict, in fact, that I can go out right this minute and buy an illegal gun for around £20/$40

And from what I've read, if you even point that gun at a criminal committing a crime, you're likely to do more prison time than he is!

[Tufty]

And from what I've read, if you even point that gun at a criminal committing a crime, you're likely to do more prison time than he is!

Oh yes...that's very true!

The criminals certainly have more rights than the non-criminals over here - or it does seem that way.

Even without a gun, if I tackled an intruder in my home and injured him/her, I would be open to prosecution for assault and probably have to pay compensation to the criminal as well

Crazy World!!

[StormKat]

As someone whose plans include getting her CCW as an Xmas present to herself this year, I'm a firm believer in gun education. My parents first taught me to shoot a gun when I was 5, I had to pass hunter's safety when I was like 12 before I could get my first real rifle & I've taken safety classes when I started buying myself handguns. Of course accidents can always happen - that's why they're called accidents! - but they're a lot less likely if you take the time to learn how to use your gun safely & correctly. And I'm glad I live where I have that option to defend myself should it ever become necessary.

[Tufty]

As someone whose plans include getting her CCW as an Xmas present to herself this year, I'm a firm believer in gun education. My parents first taught me to shoot a gun when I was 5, I had to pass hunter's safety when I was like 12 before I could get my first real rifle & I've taken safety classes when I started buying myself handguns. Of course accidents can always happen - that's why they're called accidents! - but they're a lot less likely if you take the time to learn how to use your gun safely & correctly. And I'm glad I live where I have that option to defend myself should it ever become necessary.

Absolutely right!!

[Stealth694]

As someone whose plans include getting her CCW as an Xmas present to herself this year, I'm a firm believer in gun education. My parents first taught me to shoot a gun when I was 5, I had to pass hunter's safety when I was like 12 before I could get my first real rifle & I've taken safety classes when I started buying myself handguns. Of course accidents can always happen - that's why they're called accidents! - but they're a lot less likely if you take the time to learn how to use your gun safely & correctly. And I'm glad I live where I have that option to defend myself should it ever become necessary.

Exactly Right StormKat.
Like yourself I have been drilled and re-drilled in gun safety, Personally I feel before someone gets a CCW they have to pass a gun safety course, lots of states feel the same way.

[Thorne]

Even without a gun, if I tackled an intruder in my home and injured him/her, I would be open to prosecution for assault and probably have to pay compensation to the criminal as well

That seems insane! It's like giving criminals carte blanche to commit crimes, as long as they don't use a weapon!

At least here, in the US, any person who commits a felony is responsible for all outcomes during the commision of that felony. So if a criminal breaks into my home and I use reasonable force to stop him, any damages which he incurs are his own responsibility, since they occurred while he was committing the felony.

Even so, lore has it that, if you are going to shoot a criminal breaking into your home, make certain you kill him. You can always claim that he threatened the lives of your family. If he's dead it's hard for him to contradict you.

Perhaps not the most ringing endorsement of American law, but at least I don't have to fear being sent to prison for defending my person and/or property.

[Ragoczy]

At least here, in the US, any person who commits a felony is responsible for all outcomes during the commision of that felony. So if a criminal breaks into my home and I use reasonable force to stop him, any damages which he incurs are his own responsibility, since they occurred while he was committing the felony.

Ah, but keep in mind civil, rather than criminal, liability.

Shame on the business owner who didn't ensure his air ducts would support the weight of the criminal robbing him in the night by crawling through the air conditioning system ... he must pay the medical bills.

Shame on the property owner who put up a barbed-wire fence, injuring the poor, misguided wretch who only wanted to steal enough to buy a bit of drugs (he's addicted and can't help himself, you know) ... pain and suffering damages awarded.

Shame on the homeowner who shot and killed the teenager who'd just broken through his door carrying a gun ... that poor boy's family is bereaved and deserves compensation.

[Thorne]

Ah, but keep in mind civil, rather than criminal, liability.

Shame on the business owner who didn't ensure his air ducts would support the weight of the criminal robbing him in the night by crawling through the air conditioning system ... he must pay the medical bills.

Shame on the property owner who put up a barbed-wire fence, injuring the poor, misguided wretch who only wanted to steal enough to buy a bit of drugs (he's addicted and can't help himself, you know) ... pain and suffering damages awarded.

Shame on the homeowner who shot and killed the teenager who'd just broken through his door carrying a gun ... that poor boy's family is bereaved and deserves compensation.

Ahh, yes, all too true, I'm afraid. Part of the vagaries of the jury system. If that businessman had had jurors who were also businessmen, the outcome might have been different, I'm sure. But juries today feel that insurance companies will pay the costs anyway, so no harm done.

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

And, of course, I can countersue the guy who damaged my barbed wire fence, forcing me to pay for biological clean up to remove his carelessly spilled blood, couldn't I?

Truth is, I don't know if any of those examples you noted would hold up on appeals.

[Ragoczy]

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

It has to do with differing burdens of proof. You're not actually ever found innocent in a criminal case, simply "not guilty" due to the State's failure to meet its burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence".

So a criminal jury must have a significantly higher degree of certainty than a civil one.

[Ozme52]

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

I railed against that too... and still do... regardless of whether or not he did the deed... but it is one of the many reasons we don't judge guilt or innocence... we judge guilty or not guilty.

And apparently, in this case, the semantics are everything.

Your peers must agree unaminously to judge you criminally guilty and must believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.

They must merely agree that there is a preponderance of evidence to judge you civily liable. (I'm not even sure it need be unaminous in all cases.)

[Thorne]

Ragoczy and Oz,

Thanks. You both gave similar responses, and I do understand the differences. That still doesn't mean it feels right. And I did not agree with the criminal trial's finding of Not Guilty, either. I'm sure there is a vast amount of legalese which would eventually boil down to some sort of semi-intelligent rational for this, but to my non-legal mind it still seems like double jeapordy.

[Matin]

That seems insane! It's like giving criminals carte blanche to commit crimes, as long as they don't use a weapon!

At least here, in the US, any person who commits a felony is responsible for all outcomes during the commision of that felony. So if a criminal breaks into my home and I use reasonable force to stop him, any damages which he incurs are his own responsibility, since they occurred while he was committing the felony.

Even so, lore has it that, if you are going to shoot a criminal breaking into your home, make certain you kill him. You can always claim that he threatened the lives of your family. If he's dead it's hard for him to contradict you.

Perhaps not the most ringing endorsement of American law, but at least I don't have to fear being sent to prison for defending my person and/or property.

lol you should. if you live in washington state, and several others - i'll get back to you with their names.

no self defence law, no defence of property law. none. zip. that crazy junkie in your house with a gun threatening your kids? run away.

your america, people. not mine, due to gang mentality in my younger years i'm no longer considered a citizen, and have no civil liberties

here's an ex-con's opinion, and one who went down for armed robbery; i didn't rob anyone who might be packing. and thats the truth. an armed populace tends to be a politer one.

and the problem with gun control, as i see it. the only people who lose their guns are the decent people and the collectors - crooks can get anything anywhere.

because lets face it; red tape doesn't bother the criminally minded segment of the population lol