Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
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!