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?
I'm no expert but wouldn't my gun have to be locked in special gun cabinet with ammunition stored separately or even kept at the gun club ?
In either case it wouldn't readily be to hand in a bedside draw or under my mattress.
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?
I'm no expert but wouldn't my gun have to be locked in special gun cabinet with ammunition stored separately or even kept at the gun club ?
In either case it wouldn't readily be to hand in a bedside draw or under my mattress.
Gun and ammo need to be locked away yes, but my point is that a golf club and a skeet gun are both sports accessories. You wouldn't own either of them to kill anyone, but they could both be used to do so.
I thought firearms plod came out to assess the premises and check your gun cabinet.
I think it misses Rob's point though, that a firearm can have sporting purposes like a golf club. In the UK however, if you ended up putting a bullet in a burglar you'd be banged to rights, in a country where a firearm is seen much like a golf club though - a sporting utility - it would perhaps be easier to argue.
The sole purpose of a gun is to inflict massive injury or death to whatever it is fired at. There is zero reason for anyone to own one. Plus im pretty sure the constitution has been amended once or twice so the right to bear arms bollocks doesnt really stand up to scrutiny
It is indeed the Second Amendment that gives the right to bear arms. So if these people were really as purist about it as they like to claim, they'd not want arms because that wasn't in the original constitution.
@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.
I know he is, because I came up with the scenario!
@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
So, is it justifiable to shoot someone to death on the basis that he might have committed an unspecified crime "and possibly hundreds more"? Even if he turned out to have been sober, clean and unarmed?
In my view, if you kill someone, you've committed 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?
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.
I know he is, because I came up with the scenario!
That's the problem though, after I found him in my house we had quite a bit to drink and smoked A LOT of crack, it was then he got hold of my spare gun and tried to rape my cat, in shooting him I prevented a crime but also can't help thinking that had I shot the fucker as soon as I found him I would have prevented more crime
I thought firearms plod came out to assess the premises and check your gun cabinet. .
They do. But they never come back.
Do you seriously think all shot gun owners keep their weapons and ammunition in a locked cabinet in their loft then you could be considered deluded.
Of course, I do and I'd politely ask any burglar to 'hang on a sec' whilst I pulled down my loft ladder, went up twice (because I forgot the key the first time) then expect him to hang around whilst I broke the breach and loaded the correct ammunition.
Burglars are decent like that round my neck of the woods.
I live in the US. Whichever way you slice and dice it, however much rhetoric is spouted, whatever anyone will argue against it, 2nd Amendment or not, there is a HUGE difference between owning a shot gun to protect your family and owning an assault rifle that can fire 800 rounds a minute to protect your family.
It's so sad that gun owning Americans will not admit that simple fact (@limeygent is an example) because that in itself would go a long way to securing an assault rifle ban.
@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 ?
Yep, much better to try and sit your average home invader down to have a cup of tea so you can advise him of the error of his ways and negotiate his withdrawal from your property- and your wife and kids.
@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.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
@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.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
I think the key thing is that any response by a householder has to be proportionate to the threat they face. You can, and people have, killed intruders without criminal charge if the situation is such that a reasonable person could genuinely believe that their own, or their loved-one's, safety depended on such drastic measures. However, just the fact that you have an intruder is unlikely to be sufficient for that; like it or not, killing someone is not an appropriate level of reaction to someone just being in your house. Chizz specifically said 'unarmed'. Being unarmed obviously reduces the level of personal threat, but it doesn't mean that unarmed people can't be a threat. There are lots of other factors that would be taken into consideration as well. It's difficult to talk in the abstract like this though, as every situation is different.
I've often wondered how all this apply to intruders in business premises.
I once walked into my usually deserted office near London Bridge on a Saturday and found a couple of guys sitting at my desk drinking coffee. I said "good morning" but they ran to the fire exit and took about a minute to smash their way out like frightened animals!
Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot them if I had had a gun?
I've often wondered how all this apply to intruders in business premises.
I once walked into my usually deserted office near London Bridge on a Saturday and found a couple of guys sitting at my desk drinking coffee. I said "good morning" but they ran to the fire exit and took about a minute to smash their way out like frightened animals!
Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot them if I had had a gun?
@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
So, is it justifiable to shoot someone to death on the basis that he might have committed an unspecified crime "and possibly hundreds more"? Even if he turned out to have been sober, clean and unarmed?
In my view, if you kill someone, you've committed a crime.
So, tonight, if someone attacks you, you punch them once and they die, you've committed 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.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
What is ridiculous about it, is that, in this case, the intruder is unarmed. He/she is sober and clean. And it seems "apprpriate" to kill that person.
I "get" intruder. As you can see, I introduce the scenario.
That's what made it so funny! They were so frightened they kept trying to smash it down for some reason. I didn't know whether to help them or try to keep them trapped.
In the end they worked it out and just pressed the bar!
I've often wondered how all this apply to intruders in business premises.
I once walked into my usually deserted office near London Bridge on a Saturday and found a couple of guys sitting at my desk drinking coffee. I said "good morning" but they ran to the fire exit and took about a minute to smash their way out like frightened animals!
Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot them if I had had a gun?
No...
But what a potentially frightening situation you'd found yourself in.
As a simple demonstrative exercise, imagine if those people had been security personnel sent to guard your building; and due to an administrative error, the firm employing them had omitted to tell you. To them, you would have been an intruder. If we were living in a world where it's always acceptable to kill intruders, they'd have been perfectly entitled to turn weapons on you. Absolutely horrific.
The FBI interviewed this guy twice as he was suspected of having terrorist links. It was decided he posed no threat ! Wow 50 dead --- the person/persons must live with that call
@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.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
What is ridiculous about it, is that, in this case, the intruder is unarmed. He/she is sober and clean. And it seems "apprpriate" to kill that person.
I "get" intruder. As you can see, I introduce the scenario.
How could you know these things though.
The Tony Martin case shows pretty clearly when you are crossing the line.
I've often wondered how all this apply to intruders in business premises.
I once walked into my usually deserted office near London Bridge on a Saturday and found a couple of guys sitting at my desk drinking coffee. I said "good morning" but they ran to the fire exit and took about a minute to smash their way out like frightened animals!
Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot them if I had had a gun?
No...
But what a potentially frightening situation you'd found yourself in.
As a simple demonstrative exercise, imagine if those people had been security personnel sent to guard your building; and due to an administrative error, the firm employing them had omitted to tell you. To them, you would have been an intruder. If we were living in a world where it's always acceptable to kill intruders, they'd have been perfectly entitled to turn weapons on you. Absolutely horrific.
You are allowed to defend yourself, not kill, that means you are allowed to use reasonable force, if someone dies, it's up to the courts to decide if the force was reasonable, at the time.
If you are unhappy with this, what changes do you propose?
Trump's pathetic response to the shootings just shows the problem will only get worse. The more guns there are in circulation the more deaths there will be - seems like this is what the gun lobby wants.
I've often wondered how all this apply to intruders in business premises.
I once walked into my usually deserted office near London Bridge on a Saturday and found a couple of guys sitting at my desk drinking coffee. I said "good morning" but they ran to the fire exit and took about a minute to smash their way out like frightened animals!
Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot them if I had had a gun?
No...
But what a potentially frightening situation you'd found yourself in.
As a simple demonstrative exercise, imagine if those people had been security personnel sent to guard your building; and due to an administrative error, the firm employing them had omitted to tell you. To them, you would have been an intruder. If we were living in a world where it's always acceptable to kill intruders, they'd have been perfectly entitled to turn weapons on you. Absolutely horrific.
No.
A workplace is not a dwelling, and the likelihood of seeing two intruders sitting at a desk - in complete daylight - whilst drinking coffee suggests the the risk was not at the same level as the scenario you've given. (i.e An intruder, at night, in your home.)
Anyone who has travelled in the US of A and has visited private property there will have noticed the poor construction standards of housing and that the generally cheap, feeble door locks when combined with wide sometimes double doors with no central jamb are about as useful as a sheet of giftwrap in deterring intruders. When coupled to the fact that the walls are generally made of a couple of sheets of Tyvek, stapled to some thin wooden batons, getting into American houses is not what you'd call tricky.
But still they want a gun to protect themselves! Hey Guys, spend the money instead on just making your house secure, you know, then you wouldn't have to worry about having to shoot someone.
I've often wondered how all this apply to intruders in business premises.
I once walked into my usually deserted office near London Bridge on a Saturday and found a couple of guys sitting at my desk drinking coffee. I said "good morning" but they ran to the fire exit and took about a minute to smash their way out like frightened animals!
Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot them if I had had a gun?
No...
But what a potentially frightening situation you'd found yourself in.
As a simple demonstrative exercise, imagine if those people had been security personnel sent to guard your building; and due to an administrative error, the firm employing them had omitted to tell you. To them, you would have been an intruder. If we were living in a world where it's always acceptable to kill intruders, they'd have been perfectly entitled to turn weapons on you. Absolutely horrific.
You are allowed to defend yourself, not kill, that means you are allowed to use reasonable force, if someone dies, it's up to the courts to decide if the force was reasonable, at the time.
If you are unhappy with this, what changes do you propose?
Agree with this.
If I had an intruder in the house, at night, in the dark, my only objective would be to render that intruder harmless - and in reality that would mean unconscious. There would not be intent to kill, just disable - if the intruder died then so be it - my family would be safe.
If however said intruder immediately run out of the door he had broken in from then I would not chase after him as the threat would have been removed.
@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.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
What is ridiculous about it, is that, in this case, the intruder is unarmed. He/she is sober and clean. And it seems "apprpriate" to kill that person.
I "get" intruder. As you can see, I introduce the scenario.
I hope it never happens but if you do get an intruder i hope he goes along with the role play.
Comments
In either case it wouldn't readily be to hand in a bedside draw or under my mattress.
quick read suggests there is guidance but no legal requirements:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117794/security_leaflet.pdf
Would you use a nail gun if it was to hand?
I think it misses Rob's point though, that a firearm can have sporting purposes like a golf club. In the UK however, if you ended up putting a bullet in a burglar you'd be banged to rights, in a country where a firearm is seen much like a golf club though - a sporting utility - it would perhaps be easier to argue.
In my view, if you kill someone, you've committed a crime.
Do you seriously think all shot gun owners keep their weapons and ammunition in a locked cabinet in their loft then you could be considered deluded.
Of course, I do and I'd politely ask any burglar to 'hang on a sec' whilst I pulled down my loft ladder, went up twice (because I forgot the key the first time) then expect him to hang around whilst I broke the breach and loaded the correct ammunition.
Burglars are decent like that round my neck of the woods.
It's so sad that gun owning Americans will not admit that simple fact (@limeygent is an example) because that in itself would go a long way to securing an assault rifle ban.
I once walked into my usually deserted office near London Bridge on a Saturday and found a couple of guys sitting at my desk drinking coffee. I said "good morning" but they ran to the fire exit and took about a minute to smash their way out like frightened animals!
Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot them if I had had a gun?
I "get" intruder. As you can see, I introduce the scenario.
Once you've found out the facts you can then either ask them to sit there politely whilst you ring the police or shoot them in the face. Twice.
In the end they worked it out and just pressed the bar!
But what a potentially frightening situation you'd found yourself in.
As a simple demonstrative exercise, imagine if those people had been security personnel sent to guard your building; and due to an administrative error, the firm employing them had omitted to tell you. To them, you would have been an intruder. If we were living in a world where it's always acceptable to kill intruders, they'd have been perfectly entitled to turn weapons on you. Absolutely horrific.
RIP the 50
The Tony Martin case shows pretty clearly when you are crossing the line.
If you are unhappy with this, what changes do you propose?
A workplace is not a dwelling, and the likelihood of seeing two intruders sitting at a desk - in complete daylight - whilst drinking coffee suggests the the risk was not at the same level as the scenario you've given. (i.e An intruder, at night, in your home.)
But still they want a gun to protect themselves! Hey Guys, spend the money instead on just making your house secure, you know, then you wouldn't have to worry about having to shoot someone.
If I had an intruder in the house, at night, in the dark, my only objective would be to render that intruder harmless - and in reality that would mean unconscious. There would not be intent to kill, just disable - if the intruder died then so be it - my family would be safe.
If however said intruder immediately run out of the door he had broken in from then I would not chase after him as the threat would have been removed.