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?
I know and understand the law as it impacts citizens in the UK. What I would like to change (although I know it's nearly imlossible) is the attitude that some people have which is to assume it's ok in all cases to shoot someone to death first and consider the consequences later.
@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.
We'll I know I'm never going to kill someone by shooting them.
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.)
What do you mean by "no"? Do you mean that it wouldn't be horrific?
Where did I describe a scenario that was "at night"?
If someone breaks into my house, its either with the express intent to steal my property or potentially injure my family. I have no compunction in removing that threat in the quickest way possible and in the US that would be with a gun.
Thankfully I don't live there, but if I did I would make sure my family were protected.
If someone breaks into my house, its either with the express intent to steal my property or potentially injure my family. I have no compunction in removing that threat in the quickest way possible and in the US that would be with a gun.
Thankfully I don't live there, but if I did I would make sure my family were protected.
So, in this case, you decide that there are only two possible motives. You're ignoring any other possibility. So (if this was in the US) you shoot the intruder dead.
Do you think there might be any other, legitimate excuse for the intrusion? And, if so, is it still ok to gun the intruder down?
The law in many cases, in many countries, is not without faults. But the US laws on gun control and use are way beyond the pale.
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.)
What do you mean by "no"? Do you mean that it wouldn't be horrific?
Where did I describe a scenario that was "at night"?
My "No" was directed at your attempt at comparing two people sitting at a desk drinking coffee, with someone in your very own house.
As for your scenario not being at night, if you don't give any details then don't be surprised when people assume that the details are similar to the other scenarios being posted in this thread. Posting a skeleton of a story, and then fleshing that skeleton out in a manner that's only intended to dispute points you don't like and agree with those you do, is not really good for a productive discussion.
To be entirely honest, this entire thread is ridiculous now. It's about 50 people being slaughtered whilst trying to have a night out, instead what have we got? A discussion on whether it's ok to slot a burglar, something that is just going to go around in circles like anything else political on here - it's not needed. Does everything really have to result in a masturbatory argument? It's fucking boring.
@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.
We'll I know I'm never going to kill someone by shooting them.
Sounds like you need to get up the firing range for some practice.
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...
Civilised folk are trying to stop the world regressing back a hundred and fifty years. This isn't the old west where you have to sort issues with a duel FFS.
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.)
What do you mean by "no"? Do you mean that it wouldn't be horrific?
Where did I describe a scenario that was "at night"?
My "No" was directed at your attempt at comparing two people sitting at a desk drinking coffee, with someone in your very own house.
As for your scenario not being at night, if you don't give any details then don't be surprised when people assume that the details are similar to the other scenarios being posted in this thread. Posting a skeleton of a story, and then fleshing that skeleton out in a manner that's only intended to dispute points you don't like and agree with those you do, is not really good for a productive discussion.
To be entirely honest, this entire thread is ridiculous now. It's about 50 people being slaughtered whilst trying to have a night out, instead what have we got? A discussion on whether it's ok to slot a burglar, something that is just going to go around in circles like anything else political on here - it's not needed. Does everything really have to result in a masturbatory argument? It's fucking boring.
I didn't compare those two scenarios. So accept my apologies if it appeared that I did.
Your "assumption" is crucial to the issue. Because some people will act on the basis of their assumptions. For example, assuming the intruder is male, fit, dangerous, armed, etc, and then acting on the basis those assumptions are correct.
This thread is about several shootings in the US. It's my firm belief that they should be reduced in frequency and that this can only be done by changing attitudes and laws. And I'm equally sure that attitudes can't be changed; so reducing these abhorrent acts can only be achieved by changing the law.
The second amendment (although widely and wildly over-interpreted) allows for citizens to bear arms. The good thing is that, by definition, it can amended. I hope the terrible scenes played out in Orlando this weekend help to bring about an appropriate amendment soon enough rather than too late.
The second amendment (although widely and wildly over-interpreted) allows for citizens to bear arms. The good thing is that, by definition, it can amended.
The reality is that it can't be amended. Look at the absolute outrage that even talking about introducing background checks or waiting periods provokes. No elected official is ever going to survive* long enough to bring about any change to the constitution on these issues.
*In most countries I'd be talking politically but in the USA...
The second amendment (although widely and wildly over-interpreted) allows for citizens to bear arms. The good thing is that, by definition, it can amended.
The reality is that it can't be amended. Look at the absolute outrage that even talking about introducing background checks or waiting periods provokes. No elected official is ever going to survive* long enough to bring about any change to the constitution on these issues.
*In most countries I'd be talking politically but in the USA...
Rizzo's right. Even all the classroom's full of dead kids haven't dented support for gun ownership in America. There is no prospect of the second amendment being revoked in the foreseeable future.
If someone breaks into my house, its either with the express intent to steal my property or potentially injure my family. I have no compunction in removing that threat in the quickest way possible and in the US that would be with a gun.
Thankfully I don't live there, but if I did I would make sure my family were protected.
But that is precisely the point I tried to make earlier. Most Americans take no SENSIBLE steps to protect their families at all. You know get some decent doors and locks maybe. American homes still have those nasty single-glazed sliding patio doors with little push up locks that were abandoned in this country donkey's years ago. You know the ones you can just lift off the tracks to open! Multi-point locking systems? Hah, don't be silly they don't need those, so much more sensible to just shoot someone when they get in.
Except of course it isn't. Why? Because of the vast numbers of accidental deaths - 100 children a year die this way. This together with the fact that two thirds of American gun deaths are suicides gives the lie to the "I have a gun to protect myself" argument. The truth is much simpler. Many Americans think life is just like it's portrayed in the movies. When you woke up this morning, you got yourself a gun, as the song goes. Unfortunately many Americans buy guns to kill stuff. They enjoy it.
No permit required to buy either a handgun or a long gun.
No licence required for either.
No Assault rifle law
No magazine size law
It is a felony under Florida law to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.
Florida law does not require one to disclose one's possession of a firearm on contact with Law Enforcement.
Absolute idiocy and madness.
I had to pass a background check when I bought my shotgun and my revolver and get a permit. To carry my gun I would have to apply for a "carry permit" and have a darn good reason, such as locking up a business late at night and large amounts of cash on hand. As I don't do any such thing the chances of me being able to get a 'carry permit' are extremely slim. I don't own an assault rifle so I'm not familiar with the laws, I would imagine they're at least the same.
The assertion that U.S. homes are not secure because of their construction is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on here.
No permit required to buy either a handgun or a long gun.
No licence required for either.
No Assault rifle law
No magazine size law
It is a felony under Florida law to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.
Florida law does not require one to disclose one's possession of a firearm on contact with Law Enforcement.
Absolute idiocy and madness.
I had to pass a background check when I bought my shotgun and my revolver and get a permit. To carry my gun I would have to apply for a "carry permit" and have a darn good reason, such as locking up a business late at night and large amounts of cash on hand. As I don't do any such thing the chances of me being able to get a 'carry permit' are extremely slim. I don't own an assault rifle so I'm not familiar with the laws, I would imagine they're at least the same.
The assertion that U.S. homes are not secure because of their construction is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on here.
You had to pass background checks exactly like this lunatic from Orlando had to. However, this lunatic was on an FBI Terrorist watch list. Obama has been trying to pass legislation that means if someone is on the FBI watch list they fail the background test. Republican controlled Congress refuse to allow this legislation to pass because they see it as the thin edge of the wedge that will eventually see an all out attack on 2nd amendment rights.
The second amendment (although widely and wildly over-interpreted) allows for citizens to bear arms. The good thing is that, by definition, it can amended.
The reality is that it can't be amended. Look at the absolute outrage that even talking about introducing background checks or waiting periods provokes. No elected official is ever going to survive* long enough to bring about any change to the constitution on these issues.
*In most countries I'd be talking politically but in the USA...
Rizzo's right. Even all the classroom's full of dead kids haven't dented support for gun ownership in America. There is no prospect of the second amendment being revoked in the foreseeable future.
I find it interesting that the prospect of losing or altering their rights under the 2nd amendment is so horrifying to so many Americans but when the Patriot Act did the same thing to their 1st amendment rights (including the biggie - Freedom of Speech) they willingly, even cheerfully embraced the change in the name of 'National Security'.
Great to see Owen Jones making yet another thing all about himself again on sky news last night.
I couldn't disagree more. Why on earth can't Sky News - or many other news stations and newspapers - call it as it is: a homophobic hate crime?
It's the worst anti-LGBT atrocity for decades. That is what should be reported on.
and you haven't walked out yet?
I agree it was a homophobic hate crime, just like the bataclan was a hate crime to heavy metal lovers. The freedom to be ourselves and live what lives we want.
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens? This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Owen Jones just another Guardianista idiot---- however he was right . the victims were targets because of their sexual orientation--- and regardless of the scumbag shooters religious beliefs he targeted them for that reason
With regards to Owen Jones, I'm not too sure if I agree completely with how much emphasis is being put on the LGBT angle. I don't think we claimed that the Parisian attacks were against football fans, rock fans or bar-goers, instead we saw it for it was: a terrorist attack on the Western way of life and the values attributed to this way of life.
After Paris, Europe recoiled in horror - but nobody said "Those poor [football fans/rock fans/bar patrons]."; we accepted it for what it was, a direct attack on our way of life.
We are one society - LGBT, music lovers, drinkers, straights and everything in between - and this was a direct attack on two of the core principles that allow us to have a society that encompasses different groups: tolerance and acceptance. It wasn't merely an attack on one sub-group - the LGBT community - it was an attack on all of us and the society we enjoy. I'm not too sure if there's much, if anything, to be gained by viewing it divisively.
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens? This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Now I have to go to work!
According the 2nd amendment the state would oppress the people as that was the aim of the 2nd amendment.
No one is realistically saying "ban ALL weapons". Most people are saying have some proper controls, don't sell weapons that have way OTT killing power and don't rely on 200 year old laws. Bit like in Canada.
But as others have said after Sandy Hook there is no hope. The NRA looked a 5 and 6 year old children being killed and said "no, not going to budge an inch".
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.)
What do you mean by "no"? Do you mean that it wouldn't be horrific?
Where did I describe a scenario that was "at night"?
My "No" was directed at your attempt at comparing two people sitting at a desk drinking coffee, with someone in your very own house.
As for your scenario not being at night, if you don't give any details then don't be surprised when people assume that the details are similar to the other scenarios being posted in this thread. Posting a skeleton of a story, and then fleshing that skeleton out in a manner that's only intended to dispute points you don't like and agree with those you do, is not really good for a productive discussion.
To be entirely honest, this entire thread is ridiculous now. It's about 50 people being slaughtered whilst trying to have a night out, instead what have we got? A discussion on whether it's ok to slot a burglar, something that is just going to go around in circles like anything else political on here - it's not needed. Does everything really have to result in a masturbatory argument? It's fucking boring.
I didn't compare those two scenarios. So accept my apologies if it appeared that I did.
Your "assumption" is crucial to the issue. Because some people will act on the basis of their assumptions. For example, assuming the intruder is male, fit, dangerous, armed, etc, and then acting on the basis those assumptions are correct.
This thread is about several shootings in the US. It's my firm belief that they should be reduced in frequency and that this can only be done by changing attitudes and laws. And I'm equally sure that attitudes can't be changed; so reducing these abhorrent acts can only be achieved by changing the law.
The second amendment (although widely and wildly over-interpreted) allows for citizens to bear arms. The good thing is that, by definition, it can amended. I hope the terrible scenes played out in Orlando this weekend help to bring about an appropriate amendment soon enough rather than too late.
I completely agree that the assumption is crucial to the issue, but the scenario needs to be clarified to remove those assumptions then. For what it's worth, I wouldn't go in smashing my Maglite about if the little old lady next door had wondered through my open door at 2pm asking me for some milk!
I do, despite my (admittedly, in hindsight - rather poor) remark about these arguments, agree that something has to change. Even if it's not the complete firearms ban that some would like to see (and others fear), but it's clear that the laws in places such as Florida (thanks to @Dazzler21 for posting them) are absolutely barmy.
That someone can be deemed a security risk, and on a terrorist watch list, but the government is powerless to restrict their access to military standard firearms is utterly crazy. At the very minimum there needs to be better checks in place for those wishing to purchase such weaponry, and easier grounds for rejection.
Great to see Owen Jones making yet another thing all about himself again on sky news last night.
Agree with this. He acted like a spoilt child. Kept interupting the others, and tried to make it out that it only occured because the people were LGBT. Thats nonsene, it happened because a religious fanatic wants to destroy our way of life - whether that being at a rock gig in paris, a football match in paris, travelling to work in london, madrid or new york, or being gay. Its an attack on freedom, not on the LGBT community as such.
You will never solve America's gun problem by banning or controlling guns - the words horse and bolted come to mind. It's the ammunition that would be far easier to control. There's no reason why any person or family needs to have more than a handful of bullets at any given time, if the self-defence angle is to be invoked. Doesn't take many to stop an intruder or a threat. Then make ammo sellers regulate themselves - you are legally responsible for any ammo you sell. If someone you sell ammo to goes on a murder spree, then you need to defend your justification for profiting off murder - what checks did you do? Were you 100% sure the person was responsible enough to own ammo? In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens? This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Now I have to go to work!
Is anyone here clear on how many guns you can own in the UK?
It becomes surprising we don't get many incidents here when you look at this:
Especially when a .22 calibre round can kill with a single head shot under 200 meters.
It's weird how much we prime ourselves to kill ourselves.
Comments
Where did I describe a scenario that was "at night"?
Thankfully I don't live there, but if I did I would make sure my family were protected.
Do you think there might be any other, legitimate excuse for the intrusion? And, if so, is it still ok to gun the intruder down?
The law in many cases, in many countries, is not without faults. But the US laws on gun control and use are way beyond the pale.
As for your scenario not being at night, if you don't give any details then don't be surprised when people assume that the details are similar to the other scenarios being posted in this thread. Posting a skeleton of a story, and then fleshing that skeleton out in a manner that's only intended to dispute points you don't like and agree with those you do, is not really good for a productive discussion.
To be entirely honest, this entire thread is ridiculous now. It's about 50 people being slaughtered whilst trying to have a night out, instead what have we got? A discussion on whether it's ok to slot a burglar, something that is just going to go around in circles like anything else political on here - it's not needed. Does everything really have to result in a masturbatory argument? It's fucking boring.
Seems sensible.
Just take a look at the table on here...
No permit required to buy either a handgun or a long gun.
No licence required for either.
No Assault rifle law
No magazine size law
It is a felony under Florida law to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.
Florida law does not require one to disclose one's possession of a firearm on contact with Law Enforcement.
Absolute idiocy and madness.
Your "assumption" is crucial to the issue. Because some people will act on the basis of their assumptions. For example, assuming the intruder is male, fit, dangerous, armed, etc, and then acting on the basis those assumptions are correct.
This thread is about several shootings in the US. It's my firm belief that they should be reduced in frequency and that this can only be done by changing attitudes and laws. And I'm equally sure that attitudes can't be changed; so reducing these abhorrent acts can only be achieved by changing the law.
The second amendment (although widely and wildly over-interpreted) allows for citizens to bear arms. The good thing is that, by definition, it can amended. I hope the terrible scenes played out in Orlando this weekend help to bring about an appropriate amendment soon enough rather than too late.
*In most countries I'd be talking politically but in the USA...
Except of course it isn't. Why? Because of the vast numbers of accidental deaths - 100 children a year die this way. This together with the fact that two thirds of American gun deaths are suicides gives the lie to the "I have a gun to protect myself" argument. The truth is much simpler. Many Americans think life is just like it's portrayed in the movies. When you woke up this morning, you got yourself a gun, as the song goes. Unfortunately many Americans buy guns to kill stuff. They enjoy it.
The assertion that U.S. homes are not secure because of their construction is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on here.
It's the worst anti-LGBT atrocity for decades. That is what should be reported on.
I agree it was a homophobic hate crime, just like the bataclan was a hate crime to heavy metal lovers. The freedom to be ourselves and live what lives we want.
If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens?
This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Now I have to go to work!
After Paris, Europe recoiled in horror - but nobody said "Those poor [football fans/rock fans/bar patrons]."; we accepted it for what it was, a direct attack on our way of life.
We are one society - LGBT, music lovers, drinkers, straights and everything in between - and this was a direct attack on two of the core principles that allow us to have a society that encompasses different groups: tolerance and acceptance. It wasn't merely an attack on one sub-group - the LGBT community - it was an attack on all of us and the society we enjoy. I'm not too sure if there's much, if anything, to be gained by viewing it divisively.
No one is realistically saying "ban ALL weapons". Most people are saying have some proper controls, don't sell weapons that have way OTT killing power and don't rely on 200 year old laws. Bit like in Canada.
But as others have said after Sandy Hook there is no hope. The NRA looked a 5 and 6 year old children being killed and said "no, not going to budge an inch".
I do, despite my (admittedly, in hindsight - rather poor) remark about these arguments, agree that something has to change. Even if it's not the complete firearms ban that some would like to see (and others fear), but it's clear that the laws in places such as Florida (thanks to @Dazzler21 for posting them) are absolutely barmy.
That someone can be deemed a security risk, and on a terrorist watch list, but the government is powerless to restrict their access to military standard firearms is utterly crazy. At the very minimum there needs to be better checks in place for those wishing to purchase such weaponry, and easier grounds for rejection.
It becomes surprising we don't get many incidents here when you look at this:
Especially when a .22 calibre round can kill with a single head shot under 200 meters.
It's weird how much we prime ourselves to kill ourselves.