[vyper]

No. Neds = young thugs, trouble makers, arseholes in a word.

Bucky = Cheap alcohol called Buckfast.

Welcome to my crash course in glaswegian.

[Woolie Wool]

Young thugs and JDs were exactly what I thought "neds" were.

[Rictor]

Ok, first of all you make th mistake of distinguishing between guns. Real life is not like counter-strike. Outside of a military environment, all guns are as lethal as all others. You don't do more "damage" with a Desert Eagle than with a Glock. Either one is good enough to kill somone.

A shotgun is a lethal as a handun is as lethal as an assult rifle. The types of people who do smash and grabs aren't going to pick up an assult rifle cause "it has higher accuracy when shooting at 500m". No, they pick up a simple handgun, cheap and gets the job done.

So, any gun is as good as any other gun when defending yourself. If he's got a shotgun and you've got a handun, your chances of survival are not diminished.

______

Secondly, all of America is scared of the big bad burglar comming to kick in your door and rape your wife. The thing is, this doesnt happen very often. Most people here propbably don't even know anyone who was ever part of an armed robbery. The statistical chances of it happening to you are so tiny, its practically not even worth considering. Gun companies loooove this fear, cause thats how they make their money.

You consider yourself a "decent, white American" and don't want some "black junkie thug" killing you for your wallet. But this is an unfounded fear.

That, and you could just legalize all drugs. That way, these "thugs" don't have to rob or steal, they can get them in a store and everyone is better off.

[Woolie Wool]

A shotgun is a lethal as a handun is as lethal as an assult rifle. The types of people who do smash and grabs aren't going to pick up an assult rifle cause "it has higher accuracy when shooting at 500m". No, they pick up a simple handgun, cheap and gets the job done.

They might need something like a rifle or assault rifle at around any distance greater than 20m. Pistols and SMGs are very short-ranged. Also, a lot of policemen, which can be quite an obstacle to smash-and-grabbers, wear body armor. Shoot a guy wearing a bullet-proof vest in the chest in the pistol and he'll get back up relatively unharmed. Shoot the same guy with an assault rifle and the bullet will tear right through the vest and kill him.

Also, some guns are more lethal than others because most of the time you will NOT score a direct hit to something like the heart or head. A glancing hit from a 9mm pistol round will wound you moderately. A glancing hit from a shotgun or .50 AE might blow a large chunk of your body away. A glancing hit from a concealable "pocket pistol" might not break the skin. Also, consider that people can die from pain and shock. A large round will cause more trauma and more blood loss, resulting in quicker, more reliable kills.

[Rictor]

1.Can you see a place in your house that is more than 20m from wall to wall? If so, you live in a very big house. Also, what is easier to carry and conceal, a gun or an AK? The simple fact is, there has only been a very limited amount of robberies done with automatic weapons, and they were high-risk professional jobs like bank robberies.

2. Yes, but then again most smash-and-grabbers don't count on running in to cops, so they don't plan for it. If they think that police will be present, they're not going to be stupid enough to try and take them down.

[Kazan]

Rictor: what's with the racist overtones - you're really starting to offend me with your stereotyping

[x-ray]

Just alittle word from a Canadian perspective of the right to defend ones property. The use of lethal force is only deemed necessary should the property owner's life, or friends & family, be in danger. To remove an unwanted person from your home legally,  the property owner is only permitted to as much force deemed nessary. Should someone use lethal force, he or she must be capable justifying that use of force. By allowing open season (unchallenged lethal force) we would only be permitting vigalanties to rule our communities. Without some rules to live by we would be allowing people to shoot first and ask questions later. "I didn't know Uncle Bob was coming by oops."

As for gun control there is no real solid solution. The idea of Gun Regulations are basically geared to monitor the existing amount of firearms. Though it seems that these regulations are only policing the honest people, documenting each weapon is a positive start but not the solution. The real problem with guns are the changes in ideals and values in a culture. What does someone need an automatic weapon for?

[Unknown Target]

The simple fact of the matter is, burglars don't even NEED a large gun, even if they want it. The fear of being assalted with a gun is so great in the "average, white, middle-class American," that the simple threat of getting shot is enough to cow anyone. In my opinion, at least.
Also in my opinion, I believe that the brave, freedom fighters of American past are dead for a long time, if not permanently. American sedentary (correct word?) and shameless consumerism has led to a sstate where America does not even care if it is fighting a war or not. Unless, of course, a relation of yours dies, and then you care. And that's what's sad. We should ALL notice that we have thousands of our sons and daughters fighting in a foreign country.
Why did I just go on about all that? Because it states what I think: That the average American is much more cowardly than he or she was during, say, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. (Even the latter, as we had people actually fight against the government, not be led around like neutered dogs).

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: what's with the racist overtones - you're really starting to offend me with your stereotyping

You do realize I am only talking like that demonstrate the mind-set of a typical pro-gun person. Here's a rule of thumb; if you ever find my comments to be rascist, chances are I'm being sarcastic or I'm talking from someone else's perpective.

[Woolie Wool]

1.Can you see a place in your house that is more than 20m from wall to wall? If so, you live in a very big house. Also, what is easier to carry and conceal, a gun or an AK? The simple fact is, there has only been a very limited amount of robberies done with automatic weapons, and they were high-risk professional jobs like bank robberies.

20m is actually a very high estimate. A skilled marksman can't get good accuracy beyond 12m with most pistols. The effective range of a handgun for your average joe is around 5-7m. The combined length of my living room and hallway is around 12m (my house is long and narrow). The burglar comes in through the foyer, which opens into one side of the living room. My bedroom is on the end of the main hallway clear on the other side of the house. There's your long-range standoff.

2. Yes, but then again most smash-and-grabbers don't count on running in to cops, so they don't plan for it. If they think that police will be present, they're not going to be stupid enough to try and take them down.

Here's something you should know: Cops are very good marksmen. Trying to run from a cop shooting at you won't help you much. Blowing his head off will. Also, at least in this city, if the cops are alerted, they can be in striking distance within 15 minutes, even if you attempt to escape by car.

[Fractux]

I don't think you can really take a stance with regard to protecting your life, but you can take one with regards to property. Here's my view:

If the person facing you is set on killing you, then you should do everything in your power to protect yourself, but that doesn't mean you have to kill him, if you can prevent it. It you do kill someone who is a threat to your life, than there is nothing you could do about it, and that's they way it turns out.

If another person is trying to kill you for whatever reason, you have the right to live your life just as much as they do theirs. But if a person tries to take your life willingly, they have, in a sense taken a stance that your life is less imprtant than theirs. Thus, you have the right as an individual to protect your own life.

With regard to property, things get a bit tricky. Property in today's world can mean a lot of things, and some things are worth protecting, while other proterty is just stuff that doesn't really matter.

If you talk about a country, it's your right to defend your land from aggressors trying to take it away from you. However, this statement I just made is so complex that I don't think you can ever debate it fully and ever find a real solution. It's so complex, as per who 'owns' what, and who had the rights to this land or that land.

I can't give a complete answer at this point, but I will say that anyone who sits back while an agressor takes over their land should not sit by idly. And this applies to everyone. It creates messed up situations, no doubt.

The only solution is people listening and talking to eachother.

But this is Earth afterall.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, because it is worth it.

[aldo_14]

IMO;

- 'reasonable force' can be defined as proporionate to the threat - in the event of theft of property, I'd say that covers the necessarry physical restraint.  In the event of an attack,  sufficient to repulse that attack and drive off the attack.  Only in cases where escape is impossible, or where there is no other action possible, should murder / killing be acceptable.

- in the event of serious injury or death to an attacker, I think the police should have a duty to investigate if the force was excessive, and prosecute if so.  For example, beating someone after they are unconcious is wrong.   Shooting an attacker - ok if they are armed similarly, not otherwise unless they refuse to put down - for example -  a knife

- all this should, of course, be considered in great detail on a case-by-case basis.  'Reasonable force' is hard to define in general terms (as you can tell by what I've written), unfortunately - so what I've written is not 100% accurate as to my opinion (it may seem too harsh on the houseowner, etc).

- All guns should be banned.  Is there any good reason why people should be encouraged to own lethal weapons?

- Non-lethal but incapcitating weapons should be allowed, provided that the user completes profiiciency tests to ensure they will use them responsibly. This would be stuff like tasers or stun guns.  The excpetion would be items like mace, which should be freely available (as AFAIK it's less dangerous).  Obviously, the degree of licensing should depend on the 'lethality' of the weapon, and how dangerous misuse is.

Note that one of my fundamental reasonings behind this is that killing someone is wrong - everything should be done to prevent it, regardless of who the victim is.  I.e. avoiding 'vigilante justice'.

NB:  this is my opinion.  You can argue with me if you want, but you won;t change it.  And i'm not willing to get drawn into a pissing  match like happens so often on these types of threat.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by aldo_14
- 'reasonable force' can be defined as proporionate to the threat - in the event of theft of property, I'd say that covers the necessarry physical restraint.  In the event of an attack,  sufficient to repulse that attack and drive off the attack.  Only in cases where escape is impossible, or where there is no other action possible, should murder / killing be acceptable.

I disagree because it is difficult or impossible to ascertain the exact extent of a threat before it is carried out.

- in the event of serious injury or death to an attacker, I think the police should have a duty to investigate if the force was excessive, and prosecute if so.  For example, beating someone after they are unconcious is wrong.   Shooting an attacker - ok if they are armed similarly, not otherwise unless they refuse to put down - for example -  a knife

I disagree. The use of force is not merely do drive away the attacker, it's also a punitive measure to discourage the attacker from commiting such an act again.

- all this should, of course, be considered in great detail on a case-by-case basis.  'Reasonable force' is hard to define in general terms (as you can tell by what I've written), unfortunately - so what I've written is not 100% accurate as to my opinion (it may seem too harsh on the houseowner, etc).

Be careful. Cases like this can get very complex and difficult to sort out.

- All guns should be banned.  Is there any good reason why people should be encouraged to own lethal weapons?

Really dedicated criminals will be able to get guns no matter what you try to do. What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own. Besides, the Consitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and overriding the 2nd amendment with a new amendment would be impossible due to public sentiment.

- Non-lethal but incapcitating weapons should be allowed, provided that the user completes profiiciency tests to ensure they will use them responsibly.

A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle.

This would be stuff like tasers or stun guns.  The excpetion would be items like mace, which should be freely available (as AFAIK it's less dangerous).  Obviously, the degree of licensing should depend on the 'lethality' of the weapon, and how dangerous misuse is.

Practically anything can be lethal if you misuse it the right way. A can of hair spray can become a firebomb. A can of gasoline can become an exceptionally destructive firebomb. A baseball bat can kill someone by being used to bash someone over the head. A taser can be modified to deliver a lethal jolt. A plastic bag can be used to suffocate someone. A piano string can be used as a garrote.

Note that one of my fundamental reasonings behind this is that killing someone is wrong - everything should be done to prevent it, regardless of who the victim is.  I.e. avoiding 'vigilante justice'.

I prefer lethal force to ensure that the assailant will never pose any threat to me ever again. I don't want there to be a "next time". Besides, sometime lethal force IS needed to protect your own life. Some people can shrug off many non-lethal self-defense devices, especially things like mace.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

I disagree because it is difficult or impossible to ascertain the exact extent of a threat before it is carried out.


I disagree. The use of force is not merely do drive away the attacker, it's also a punitive measure to discourage the attacker from commiting such an act again.


Be careful. Cases like this can get very complex and difficult to sort out.


Really dedicated criminals will be able to get guns no matter what you try to do. What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own. Besides, the Consitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and overriding the 2nd amendment with a new amendment would be impossible due to public sentiment.


A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle.


Practically anything can be lethal if you misuse it the right way. A can of hair spray can become a firebomb. A can of gasoline can become an exceptionally destructive firebomb. A baseball bat can kill someone by being used to bash someone over the head. A taser can be modified to deliver a lethal jolt. A plastic bag can be used to suffocate someone. A piano string can be used as a garrote.


I prefer lethal force to ensure that the assailant will never pose any threat to me ever again. I don't want there to be a "next time". Besides, sometime lethal force IS needed to protect your own life. Some people can shrug off many non-lethal self-defense devices, especially things like mace.

So let me get this straight?

You are working under the assumption that a criminal will go through the trouble of buying an assult rifle, learning how to use it, and break in to your house to steal your TV.

At this point, you will be cursing yourself for not buying and SMG, becuase it could have saved your life if only you hadn't been an idiot and tried to fight him.

Jeez, no wonder you're scared ****less. But its never going to happen. Sorry, but there are more important things in this world than your crappy TV or the $150 you have in your wallet.

oh and, I agree with what aldo said abouy non-lethal weapons. They're the way to go. Outlaw guns. I've never seen anyone die from a can of pepper spray.

[aldo_14]

Right - i said I wouldn;t get in an argument, and I won't.  Because my mind is set.  however, I would like to point out that you've not given a good reason for selling guns - firstly, I'm talking on a moral level, not constituional.  I come from Scotland, and we made the wise step of banning guns after the dunblane massacre.  

 Secondly, if an 'armed gang' tries to rob you, odds are they will shoot when you go for a gun, or shootback when you do.  either waym, death is more likely.  

what you should be looking for is ways to facilitate the complete removal of guns, not ways to encourage use.  It may be the 'hard' option, but it;'s the one that will save lives, not cost them.  

The rest - i honestly can't be arsed responding to.  But I don;t think any of your  reply invalidated what I said.  what I did note, was that you were looking for ways in which people could be killed - i was looking for ways in which this could be avoided.  Maybe that's the difference in our reasoning.

[x-ray]

all this should, of course, be considered in great detail on a case-by-case basis. 'Reasonable force' is hard to define in general terms (as you can tell by what I've written), unfortunately - so what I've written is not 100% accurate as to my opinion (it may seem too harsh on the houseowner, etc).

Yes! Reasonable force is defined by the legal perspective of the Criminal Code. Though when an issued is directed in court it can often fall into a lawyer's interpretation (pending on the situation). However there is such a thing as a use of force continum. This is where the choice of force can be scrutinized. For example: an unwanted person who is much stronger than you enters your home and pushes you toward another room. The resident can escalate their use of force one degree higher then the invader (pick something up as a weapon and us it for protection- until the threat is gone)... or a police officer draws his or her weapon to someone with a knife. (Though knives can sometimes be just a dangerous as a gun in some situations. Most gun fights are usually within 10 feet. Knives obviously can be dangerous at close proximity aswell.)

The bottom line is that should someone use lethal force they had better be prepared to answer some hard questions- the police are no fools and can determine many things within the realm of a criminal investigation.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Rictor
You are working under the assumption that a criminal will go through the trouble of buying an assult rifle, learning how to use it, and break in to your house to steal your TV.

Who says they will use an AR? If they have an assault rifle, you're screwed no matter what kind of weapon you have. More likely they'd have a large-caliber pistol or a knife.

At this point, you will be cursing yourself for not buying and SMG, becuase it could have saved your life if only you hadn't been an idiot and tried to fight him.

People should have the right to protect themselves and their property by whatever means they deem necessary. A small SMG is designed for people who may encounter close-range fights with multiple threats. It may be an extravagance in Anytown, USA, but it could wind up being a lifesaver in, say, Detroit. SMGs would NOT be intended for general-purpose use. They are designed to protect you in a highly dangerous situation. Few of them would actually be sold in the civilian market. Most would go to law enforcement and other areas of local governments. A pistol will be enough for most people.

Jeez, no wonder you're scared ****less. But its never going to happen. Sorry, but there are more important things in this world than your crappy TV or the $150 you have in your wallet.

The value of a life in my eyes depends on what that life does with itself. My house, my property, and my person are worth more than the life of a dangerous criminal whose very presence is a detriment to society.

oh and, I agree with what aldo said abouy non-lethal weapons. They're the way to go. Outlaw guns. I've never seen anyone die from a can of pepper spray.

That is foolish. It is better to own an instrument of death than to fall to one because you did not have your own. Lethal force is an ugly thing, but it is better than being unable to stop an assailant. Remember that some people are not fazed by pepper spray or tear gas, especially those who have been trained to resist its effects.

[aldo_14]

Shouldn;t you be trying to remove lethal weapons altogether, rather than being caught in a civil arms race?

Simple question - do you want any civillian to be able to have a gun (period)?

[Woolie Wool]

Yes.

Remember that guns can do more than kill people--they can be used for hunting, for sport, for collecting, and just shooting off a few rounds on the firing range for fun.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Concerning the second amendment Woolie; it makes me feel fortunate I'm not a citizen of america.

I've lived in northern Ireland for almost 25 years and none of the crap I've seen happening makes me want to grab a gun.

Everyone can theorise about killing someone who perpetrates a crime against them but I would only ever use lethal force if someone  threatened the lives of my friends, I'm reasonably capable of subduing most physical attacks and conventional cutting and bludgeoning attacks. To actually kill someone is the single most heinous act I can consider, and to kill someone for murdering someone else is most hypocritical.

Common sense is something that few people consider.
[/color]