@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
By the law he has prevented a crime as the intruder had no legal right or reason to be in his home, the intruder would have also entered the house knowing that the home owners could very well be armed.
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
Prevented one, and possibly hundreds more from the original offender. IMO
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
By the law he has prevented a crime as the intruder had no legal right or reason to be in his home, the intruder would have also entered the house knowing that the home owners could very well be armed.
I think you're banging your head against the wall.
Chizz, how do you know he's unarmed or he's alone? A crack addict or psychopath could beat you to death with his bare hands.
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
and if you landed him one on the nut and killed him. Is it murder/manslaughter?
Where the analogy falls down is that if SHG (or anyone else really) has a bad day or is brainwashed by some extremist it's very unlikely he could take the exact same nine iron to a gay club and kill or injure over a hundred people.
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
By the law he has prevented a crime as the intruder had no legal right or reason to be in his home, the intruder would have also entered the house knowing that the home owners could very well be armed.
Not true, this depends state-to-state. Places like (and sorry if i get this wrong) Arizona, Texas, and most famously Florida have "stand you ground" laws. In California, you'd go to jail for manslaughter.
Can't quite bring myself to have the gun control debate just yet, have friends who went to Pulse and this was breaking earlier this morning, about a man caught in a neighborhood where I grew up and planning an attack on a festival I've attended:
In the video I posted earlier, Obama talks about the fact that people on the ISIS watchlist cannot be prevented from getting guns.
@limeygent the comparisons to cars is a good one because cars are incredibly dangerous. What we do with cars is HEAVILY montior them, require a training period, written test, in-person test, create circumstances around when and how you can drive them, how fast, that you need to be wearing a seatbelt, etc., and deploy police to police roads. The provide an excellent model of "how to take something that is unsafe and make is safer."
Whether you own a gun or not in the US, I don't see much evidence that in most cases it would help with the sort of mass shootings.
People may have them at home and be able to access them in time one or two perps rock up to the house but they aren't carried around to clubs and so on. And if they were, I'm not convinced deaths would decrease.
Interesting point on the blood donation. I wasn't aware it was illegal in some states for gay people to donate (presumably on historic like hood if AIDS which blood is now tested for anyway) but Muslims are.
I can imagine Donald Trump coming out with 'we should have the right to refuse blood transfusions from Muslim blood. If I become president I will enforce a universal medical record that will allow upstanding Americans to state what minority groups they are prepared to accept life saving transfusions or organ donations from.'
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
Prevented one, obviously.
No sense of using excessive force ?
Excessive force is a great concept.. unless you find yourself in a situation where it applies.
Consider this; I keep a Maglite beside my bed. When I've ventured in to the garden at night to investigate peculiar noises, I've taken it with me. Anyone who has a Maglite will tell you that one of the main reasons to carry one is that they're indestructible, there are better and smaller options for illumination, but not many will stand the abuse of a Maglite.
Were I to awake and discover someone in my house, I would not hesitate to swing that metal cylinder around with every bit of force I could muster, in the hop of getting a lucky blow to nullify any threat that he possesses. I am not going to turn the light on and ask him if he is carrying a weapon, and I'm not going to politely ask him to leave. I am going to yell at the top of my lungs for him to get out immediately and proceed to summon up every ounce of aggression I'm capable of.
The sheer fact that he is in my house unlawfully and with no good reason is enough for me to worry about the safety of myself and the safety of my girlfriend. I will take steps to nullify that threat to ensure that there's no further risk, and if that means going in at 110% then so be it.
Were I in America, where gun ownership and gun related crime is greater, I'm sure my Maglite would in fact be a pistol with a flashlight mounted beneath it.
It's much harder to kill someone with a maglite than with a gun.
If someone came round near me and I started to get spooked around someone getting in the house (unlikely in a terraced property by westcombe park living next to a copper), I would first try and find the best weapon close to hand, probably upstairs this is a hammer or a screwdriver or more likely both. I would then try and get closer to the noise without making much myself before, if there was someone in my house going absolutely berserk and trying to maim, incapacitate or kill them.
Probably I would do enough to scare them off or I would win, if there was more than one, I'd maybe lose. Be surprised if anyone died.
If I had a gun, they would have a gun. Much greater chance of me or them dying.
The argument that frustrates me the most is "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which on the face of it makes a lot of sense.
However, when compared with knife crime... pulling that trigger is so *easy* if you're just a wee bit unstable. Whereas you've got to be a proper mad bastard to run into a nightclub, stab and fatally wound as many as this fella did last night.
It's also easier to get away with slaughtering more innocent people when you've got a gun, than if you're in close quarters with a knife or any other makeshift weapon.
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
So what's the difference from beating someone to death with a golf club and shooting them dead?
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
The difference is almost so great as to not try to explain it.
My nine iron is a golf club that could be used in other circumstances as a weapon. In my case it would be in self defence but I take your point that it could be used in to attack someone.
Here's the real difference. The golf club is just like anything else I choose to pick up that is handy in order to protect myself. An everyday item. You can kill someone with a tin of baked beans but it's not the purpose. I swing the tin and who knows what happens if I hit someone. A head shot could be a killer but anywhere else then I would the first to commit beanicide.
A gun is altogether different. It's sole purpose is to kill someone. You shoot, you hit and there is a very good chance that your target dies.
The result could have the same outcome I agree but the difference is enormous.
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
By the law he has prevented a crime as the intruder had no legal right or reason to be in his home, the intruder would have also entered the house knowing that the home owners could very well be armed.
Not true, this depends state-to-state. Places like (and sorry if i get this wrong) Arizona, Texas, and most famously Florida have "stand you ground" laws. In California, you'd go to jail for manslaughter.
Can't quite bring myself to have the gun control debate just yet, have friends who went to Pulse and this was breaking earlier this morning, about a man caught in a neighborhood where I grew up and planning an attack on a festival I've attended:
In the video I posted earlier, Obama talks about the fact that people on the ISIS watchlist cannot be prevented from getting guns.
@limeygent the comparisons to cars is a good one because cars are incredibly dangerous. What we do with cars is HEAVILY montior them, require a training period, written test, in-person test, create circumstances around when and how you can drive them, how fast, that you need to be wearing a seatbelt, etc., and deploy police to police roads. The provide an excellent model of "how to take something that is unsafe and make is safer."
Felons aren't allowed to own guns, that doesn't stop them from getting them. The same way we take away peoples driving licenses for bad driving, that, unfortunately doesn't stop them from driving. As people are so inclined, the only thing we can do is protect ourselves against them the best way we can.
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
So what's the difference from beating someone to death with a golf club and shooting them dead?
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
The difference is almost so great as to not try to explain it.
My nine iron is a golf club that could be used in other circumstances as a weapon. In my case it would be in self defence but I take your point that it could be used in to attack someone.
Here's the real difference. The golf club is just like anything else I choose to pick up that is handy in order to protect myself. An everyday item. You can kill someone with a tin of baked beans but it's not the purpose. I swing the tin and who knows what happens if I hit someone. A head shot could be a killer but anywhere else then I would the first to commit beanicide.
A gun is altogether different. It's sole purpose is to kill someone. You shoot, you hit and there is a very good chance that your target dies.
The result could have the same outcome I agree but the difference is enormous.
So what if you were into clay pigeon shooting as opposed to golf?
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
So what's the difference from beating someone to death with a golf club and shooting them dead?
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
The difference is almost so great as to not try to explain it.
My nine iron is a golf club that could be used in other circumstances as a weapon. In my case it would be in self defence but I take your point that it could be used in to attack someone.
Here's the real difference. The golf club is just like anything else I choose to pick up that is handy in order to protect myself. An everyday item. You can kill someone with a tin of baked beans but it's not the purpose. I swing the tin and who knows what happens if I hit someone. A head shot could be a killer but anywhere else then I would the first to commit beanicide.
A gun is altogether different. It's sole purpose is to kill someone. You shoot, you hit and there is a very good chance that your target dies.
The result could have the same outcome I agree but the difference is enormous.
So what if you were into clay pigeon shooting as opposed to golf?
You're an upper class twat instead of a middle class twat?
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
So what's the difference from beating someone to death with a golf club and shooting them dead?
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
The difference is almost so great as to not try to explain it.
My nine iron is a golf club that could be used in other circumstances as a weapon. In my case it would be in self defence but I take your point that it could be used in to attack someone.
Here's the real difference. The golf club is just like anything else I choose to pick up that is handy in order to protect myself. An everyday item. You can kill someone with a tin of baked beans but it's not the purpose. I swing the tin and who knows what happens if I hit someone. A head shot could be a killer but anywhere else then I would the first to commit beanicide.
A gun is altogether different. It's sole purpose is to kill someone. You shoot, you hit and there is a very good chance that your target dies.
The result could have the same outcome I agree but the difference is enormous.
So what if you were into clay pigeon shooting as opposed to golf?
You're an upper class twat instead of a middle class twat?
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
So what's the difference from beating someone to death with a golf club and shooting them dead?
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
For one thing, if a terrorist tried to attack a public location with a golf club then perhaps he would kill someone, maybe even more than one if circumstances went his way, but everyone else would run away or even stand a decent chance of getting it out of his hands. If he used a gun instead, within about thirty seconds you have multiple casualties and the shock is immense, people are terrified and panicking.
The world might be changing but the ''civilised folks'' are the ones coming off the worse for it.
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
So what's the difference from beating someone to death with a golf club and shooting them dead?
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
The difference is almost so great as to not try to explain it.
My nine iron is a golf club that could be used in other circumstances as a weapon. In my case it would be in self defence but I take your point that it could be used in to attack someone.
Here's the real difference. The golf club is just like anything else I choose to pick up that is handy in order to protect myself. An everyday item. You can kill someone with a tin of baked beans but it's not the purpose. I swing the tin and who knows what happens if I hit someone. A head shot could be a killer but anywhere else then I would the first to commit beanicide.
A gun is altogether different. It's sole purpose is to kill someone. You shoot, you hit and there is a very good chance that your target dies.
The result could have the same outcome I agree but the difference is enormous.
So what if you were into clay pigeon shooting as opposed to golf?
You're an upper class twat instead of a middle class twat?
The crack addict will have to get past my nine iron first.
So what's the difference from beating someone to death with a golf club and shooting them dead?
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
The difference is almost so great as to not try to explain it.
My nine iron is a golf club that could be used in other circumstances as a weapon. In my case it would be in self defence but I take your point that it could be used in to attack someone.
Here's the real difference. The golf club is just like anything else I choose to pick up that is handy in order to protect myself. An everyday item. You can kill someone with a tin of baked beans but it's not the purpose. I swing the tin and who knows what happens if I hit someone. A head shot could be a killer but anywhere else then I would the first to commit beanicide.
A gun is altogether different. It's sole purpose is to kill someone. You shoot, you hit and there is a very good chance that your target dies.
The result could have the same outcome I agree but the difference is enormous.
So what if you were into clay pigeon shooting as opposed to golf?
You're an upper class twat instead of a middle class twat?
Comments
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
Chizz,
how do you know he's unarmed or he's alone? A crack addict or psychopath could beat you to death with his bare hands.
Can't quite bring myself to have the gun control debate just yet, have friends who went to Pulse and this was breaking earlier this morning, about a man caught in a neighborhood where I grew up and planning an attack on a festival I've attended:
http://www.latimes.com/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html
In the video I posted earlier, Obama talks about the fact that people on the ISIS watchlist cannot be prevented from getting guns.
@limeygent the comparisons to cars is a good one because cars are incredibly dangerous. What we do with cars is HEAVILY montior them, require a training period, written test, in-person test, create circumstances around when and how you can drive them, how fast, that you need to be wearing a seatbelt, etc., and deploy police to police roads. The provide an excellent model of "how to take something that is unsafe and make is safer."
People may have them at home and be able to access them in time one or two perps rock up to the house but they aren't carried around to clubs and so on. And if they were, I'm not convinced deaths would decrease.
Interesting point on the blood donation. I wasn't aware it was illegal in some states for gay people to donate (presumably on historic like hood if AIDS which blood is now tested for anyway) but Muslims are.
I can imagine Donald Trump coming out with 'we should have the right to refuse blood transfusions from Muslim blood. If I become president I will enforce a universal medical record that will allow upstanding Americans to state what minority groups they are prepared to accept life saving transfusions or organ donations from.'
Insane.
Consider this; I keep a Maglite beside my bed. When I've ventured in to the garden at night to investigate peculiar noises, I've taken it with me. Anyone who has a Maglite will tell you that one of the main reasons to carry one is that they're indestructible, there are better and smaller options for illumination, but not many will stand the abuse of a Maglite.
Were I to awake and discover someone in my house, I would not hesitate to swing that metal cylinder around with every bit of force I could muster, in the hop of getting a lucky blow to nullify any threat that he possesses. I am not going to turn the light on and ask him if he is carrying a weapon, and I'm not going to politely ask him to leave. I am going to yell at the top of my lungs for him to get out immediately and proceed to summon up every ounce of aggression I'm capable of.
The sheer fact that he is in my house unlawfully and with no good reason is enough for me to worry about the safety of myself and the safety of my girlfriend. I will take steps to nullify that threat to ensure that there's no further risk, and if that means going in at 110% then so be it.
Were I in America, where gun ownership and gun related crime is greater, I'm sure my Maglite would in fact be a pistol with a flashlight mounted beneath it.
IMO The world is changing and civilised folk seem to be slow to accept that...
If someone came round near me and I started to get spooked around someone getting in the house (unlikely in a terraced property by westcombe park living next to a copper), I would first try and find the best weapon close to hand, probably upstairs this is a hammer or a screwdriver or more likely both. I would then try and get closer to the noise without making much myself before, if there was someone in my house going absolutely berserk and trying to maim, incapacitate or kill them.
Probably I would do enough to scare them off or I would win, if there was more than one, I'd maybe lose. Be surprised if anyone died.
If I had a gun, they would have a gun. Much greater chance of me or them dying.
However, when compared with knife crime... pulling that trigger is so *easy* if you're just a wee bit unstable. Whereas you've got to be a proper mad bastard to run into a nightclub, stab and fatally wound as many as this fella did last night.
It's also easier to get away with slaughtering more innocent people when you've got a gun, than if you're in close quarters with a knife or any other makeshift weapon.
My nine iron is a golf club that could be used in other circumstances as a weapon. In my case it would be in self defence but I take your point that it could be used in to attack someone.
Here's the real difference. The golf club is just like anything else I choose to pick up that is handy in order to protect myself. An everyday item. You can kill someone with a tin of baked beans but it's not the purpose. I swing the tin and who knows what happens if I hit someone. A head shot could be a killer but anywhere else then I would the first to commit beanicide.
A gun is altogether different. It's sole purpose is to kill someone. You shoot, you hit and there is a very good chance that your target dies.
The result could have the same outcome I agree but the difference is enormous.
The world might be changing but the ''civilised folks'' are the ones coming off the worse for it.
The former are predominantly used for target practice or killing animals, the latter against other humans.
Gypsy.