Colorado Shootings -- One Life Ended to Save Others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I agree with them that training matters. That's the primary reason I do not yet own a gun. I would never bother unless and until I had the funds and time to secure the proper training (and maintain it) first.

---

Knowing how to accurately fire a gun and maintain it is certainly important, but I'm not in favor of training requirements to own a gun. First of all, I learned almost everything I know about guns and gun safety from relatives and what I didn't learn from them I learned from reading the gun laws and discussion with other knowledgeable people. I seriously doubt that any 1-day course would teach me anything I don't know when I've been around guns most of my life. Secondly, I'd liken class requirements to a poll tax for gun ownership- it'd keep some of the poor who need them most from being able to afford one.

Quote:

---

Interestingly, my wife was mostly anti-gun (raised in the P.R. of the Willamette Valley) until she worked with the police department near here and ended up taking the gun training course as part of her OJT. Training makes a huge differece.

---

Being able to see, hold, and use a gun in a safe manner does wonders for most gunaphobes. After a firing a few cylinders full from my .357 magnum, I've seen a couple people go from being anxious about even touching it to asking me how to go about buying one and heard about it happening to many others. Actually seeing something for what it really is always does a lot to lessen irrational fears. :yes:

Quote:

---

This is the "gun debate" thread, not the "why my country is better than yours" thread.

---

Hence my comment, saying that the key difference between our countries in this area is that of gun control, and hence did I draw a comparison between a country in which the police are trusted, nay, entrusted, with the safety of the populace, and one where rampant crime has led to that no longer being viable (or, at least, that is what is implied in your arguments ~;))

Quote:

---

Oh, so everyone in Australia has a personal police bodyguard? Or are you just spouting BS?

---

In Australia, we are not in danger of being shot as we walk down the street; hence we do not need guns for self defence; thus the police forces are sufficient to ensure our safety.

Quote:

---

Look at the debate thread.

---

That debate was filled with a lot of assertions, and very little proof (on both sides). At no point did you provide data that conclusively proved that a reduction in the supply of guns would not reduce crime; you certainly were not able to prove that the guns themselves reduce it :grin2:

The only thing I have gleaned from the data posted in these debates and threads is that the vast majority of Americans are safe most of the time, using their methods - and that the vast majority of Europeans are safe most of the time, using ours.

There are examples from both solutions to prove they are not perfect.

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

What does our society have to do with the response time to a 911 call?

---

A lot, european and australian murderers usually give you a phone before executing you so you can call the police to clean up the mess. Our response times are also artificially higher so that the murderer gets a fair chance to escape, we give noone an unfair advantage here.
Obviously your society is unfair and that is reflected by the fact that murderers do not give victims a chance to call 911 and thus response times can be up to a month or more when someone strolling along finds the dead body. :no:

Also Banquo is right, both systems have their pros and cons, it's not like the US were in a state of anarchy with street fights on every corner, neither are criminals executing droves of helpless citizens on european streets. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

That debate was filled with a lot of assertions, and very little proof (on both sides). At no point did you provide data that conclusively proved that a reduction in the supply of guns would not reduce crime; you certainly were not able to prove that the guns themselves reduce it :grin2:

---

:dizzy2:
Well here you go then:

Quote:

---

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

---

Quote:

---

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

---

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

:beam:

Quote:

---

In Australia, we are not in danger of being shot as we walk down the street; hence we do not need guns for self defence; thus the police forces are sufficient to ensure our safety.

---

Wow. So no one is ever assaulted, mugged, robbed, or raped in Australia? The police prevent every attempted crime? Now where did that story about a gang of gang-rapists several years ago come from?

CR

I didn't hear Sapi mention assault, muggings, robbery or rape. I heard him say he wasn't in danger of being shot.

I also think BG is right. It's easy to be carried to extremes on this topic.

Quote:

---

Actually seeing something for what it really is always does a lot to lessen irrational fears.

---

Is that meant to diminish those arguing for gun control here on the basis that they haven't seen or used a gun? :shrug:

In other news, the UK has decided to ban imitation samurai swords:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7139724.stm

:laugh4:

Banquo: Once again, your penchant for reasonableness is at odds with the hallowed traditions of the Backroom. How did you end up moderating this exercise in differend? :smartass2:


Questions regarding cultural/societal difference?


Where you are from, is it "permissable" (allowed by law, no sanction against the person so doing) to use violence to:

Defend your person from grievous harm/death?

Defend your person from any physical harm?

Defend another person from grievous harm/death?

Defend another person from any physical harm?

Defend your property from harm/theft?

Defend another's property from harm/theft?


Are there different rules if weapons are involved?

Are there different rules if firearms are involved?

Comments?

The problem with asking about the law in Britain is that in the case of self defence, the wording of the law itself is very vague, and the actual implementation of the law is heavily based on common law and precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Criminal Law Act

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

---

In common law, this translates as the right to defend yourself, another, or your property. I'm not sure about someone else's property, but I'd guess it's covered too.

If you legally possess a gun, you can use in self defence. The controversial cases are those where criminals have been shot as they escaped, after the point when they presented any threat.


But this argument for less gun control as a method of self defence isn't really relevant when comparing the US to the UK. If you have a gun legally, you can use it for self defence. That's the same in the UK and the US.

The difference and the argument, is about what should be necessary to obtain a gun, and wether you should be allowed to take that gun (loaded) outside of your own property or controlled environments like ranges.

So if we look at the laws of self defence, I think we'll find them to be very similar. If we look at the laws of self defence with firearms, I think we'll find them to be very similar again.

This isn't where the difference lies. (Which is why I find it slightly confusing as to why self defence is considered such a strong argument against gun control)

Quote:

---

Well here you go then:

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
He asked I still wait in eager anticipation of statistics which can conclusively prove this assertion . what you provided yet again is not proof and is certainly not conclusive .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

How did you end up moderating this exercise in differend?

---

He volunteered to present the unpresentable, to "bear witness to differends" :beam:

Perhaps some headway could be made in these gun discussions, by examining the cultural disconnect between Europe & the Commonwealth on one hand, and the US on the other.

Is there, or could there be, a fundamental difference of perception, based on the one group's extensive political-cultural history of privileges being granted to subjects from "above", versus rights being taken or assumed by a revolutionary citizenry?

If so, that may inevitably lead to the difference of opinion on the issue of individual self-defense being an individual duty, versus the "that's what police are for" outlook.

If that makes any sense.

Trying to restate it more simply: Euro/C'wealth and the US have many similarities, but a couple of significant differences, that will almost always result in friction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

He volunteered to present the unpresentable, to "bear witness to differends" :beam:

---

In short, I was drafted. :wink3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

In other news, the UK has decided to ban imitation samurai swords:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7139724.stm

:laugh4:

---

This a great start, finally our politicians are realizing what may be the biggest threat to our society. Next we need to look into the problem of Chainsaw murderers, these clearly need to baned except for lumberjacks where is absolutely vital that they need to be carefully screened since god knows that we can't have such a dangerous tool in the hands of just anyone off the streets. Then cars are just a massacre waiting to happen, do you know how many people some manic could take out with one of those on a crowded street? and don't even get me started about kitchen knifes [/SARCASM]

[QUOTE=Myrddraal]I didn't hear Sapi mention assault, muggings, robbery or rape. I heard him say he wasn't in danger of being shot.[QUOTE]

Oh, right. His argument didn't make that much sense. He claimed that guns can only defend one against being shot, and since he wasn't afraid of that, he could rely on the police. Now it seems to me there's more to worry about than just being shot - knives can be just as deadly, and various violent crimes exist, so obviously the police can't protect against them all.

Quote:

---

In common law, this translates as the right to defend yourself, another, or your property. I'm not sure about someone else's property, but I'd guess it's covered too.

---

Most of the US has no nonsense about 'reasonable force' - the absurd idea that one must engage only in a fair fight with a man who's broken into your house at night.

Quote:

---

But this argument for less gun control as a method of self defence isn't really relevant when comparing the US to the UK. If you have a gun legally, you can use it for self defence. That's the same in the UK and the US.

---

Yes, but its much harder to obtain a gun in Britain.

Quote:

---

Which is why I find it slightly confusing as to why self defence is considered such a strong argument against gun control

---

Gun control reduces people's ability to buy guns, which are the most effective means of self defense.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Gun control reduces people's ability to buy guns, which are the most effective means of self defense.

CR

---

And would you use that same argument to allow every country in the world to have a nuke? They are very effective you know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

And would you use that same argument to allow every country in the world to have a nuke? They are very effective you know...

---

Except for the fact that kill millions of life in one go, and spread enough radition to not only hit the target country but all its neighbors. Guns are totally different then nukes for one they only can kill on person and are also frequently used by others against you. Something which you can't say about nukes. Also there's the fact that if one country nukes somebody then you get the whole MAD argument working and in the end all you end up with is a scorched waste land.

It's just a sliding scale.
Same principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

He volunteered to present the unpresentable, to "bear witness to differends" :beam:

---

Nicely turned. :yes:

And our kindly moderators are necessary as, in the Backroom if not everywhere, "to speak is to fight, in the sense of playing...."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

It's just a sliding scale.
Same principle.

---

Can something like welfare and communism not be seen as the same principle to. I don't see agreeing with Welfare the same as agreeing with a peoples state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Can something like welfare and communism not be seen as the same principle to. I don't see agreeing with Welfare the same as agreeing with a peoples state.

---

Without getting sidetracked too much, no. I don't know what Welfare in America equates to, but there is a huge difference between giving a safety net to people when they need it to get them back on their feet and equality for all irrespective of the job they do.
We can make as many analogies as we want, rightly or wrongly. But I think that giving someone a deadly weapon to protect themselves is only going to generate an arms race on a local level as I think is proved in inner city America where the problem seems to be endemic.
I think my argument with nukes still stands too, give them to everyone as a deterrent and it will deter a lot of agression in the world. But there will always be the occassional megalomaniac/mentally unstable guy that will want to shoot another nation in the head because "he wants to be famous".

The so called arms race is not spawned by realtivly easy access to guns and will not be stoped by it ethier. Do you think that organized crime is going to stop using guns just because the law says they can't? If anything removing guns will benfit organized crime, think about it if your the only one who has illegaly smuggled in guns which you can not only use but sell for a massive price would you regard that as a failure?

I'm not sure how the RN does with smugglers but the U.S. does not have anyway to stop any smuggling attempts and guns will not be removed from socicity as long as there is a demand. It would be better to focus on the causes of the violence instead of treating just one symtom of this cancer we call violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Most of the US has no nonsense about 'reasonable force' - the absurd idea that one must engage only in a fair fight with a man who's broken into your house at night.

---

So I can break the legs and arms on a pickpocketeer after catching him taking my vallet? Can I shoot a burgler fleeing from my property a few times extra aswell even if I don't kill him? :inquisitive:
Resonable force is there to prevent legal use of excessive force.

Seamus Fermanagh, as Myrddraal mentioned, all those things are allowed, using "resonable force", but this will of course depend on the nature of the crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

:dizzy2:
Well here you go then:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

:beam:

---

Two things:
1. That's an isolated example, and proves nothing. You need more than the evidence from one state to actually 'prove' something.
2. That other evidence would be a lot more convincing if it didn't come from a website that has on its homepage the phrase Until the Second Amendment is treated as normal constitutional law, this web site will always be under construction... and suggests that the one thing that you should get from it is this ~:)

Quote:

---

Wow. So no one is ever assaulted, mugged, robbed, or raped in Australia? The police prevent every attempted crime? Now where did that story about a gang of gang-rapists several years ago come from?

---

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out. It is counterproductive to have weapons in such cases, as they raise the level of threat posed by the victim and thus increase the chances of the criminal judging an assault or murder to be necessary.

Quote:

---

Except for the fact that kill millions of life in one go, and spread enough radition to not only hit the target country but all its neighbors. Guns are totally different then nukes for one they only can kill on person and are also frequently used by others against you. Something which you can't say about nukes. Also there's the fact that if one country nukes somebody then you get the whole MAD argument working and in the end all you end up with is a scorched waste land.

---

But surely MAD is the situation that you are trying to create with liberal gun laws? ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out. It is counterproductive to have weapons in such cases, as they raise the level of threat posed by the victim and thus increase the chances of the criminal judging an assault or murder to be necessary.

---

Myrd's example did not really say that, Sapi. He said English common law condones the use of violence to protect life, limb, and property. I suspect he'd agree as to your belief that a firearm as the tool for that defence enhances danger all around, but he noted it's legality as a tool for defence -- presuming one had the right/permission etc. to possess one.

Are you suggesting that violence in defence of one's property is either illegal or considered immoral in antipodean lands? Or only the use of "likely-to-be" lethal force?

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting that violence in defence of one's property is either illegal or considered immoral

---

I don't think anyone would suggest that. However I disagree with CR's idea that reasonable force is nonsense.

Defence it to defend, not for revenge. You cannot shoot people in the back as they flee from your property.

Also, excessive violence is (imo) morally wrong even in some situations where you are defending your property. You don't gun someone down as they make off with your wallet. (or at least, I hope you don't)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So I can break the legs and arms on a pickpocketeer after catching him taking my vallet? Can I shoot a burgler fleeing from my property a few times extra aswell even if I don't kill him? :inquisitive:
Resonable force is there to prevent legal use of excessive force.

Seamus Fermanagh, as Myrddraal mentioned, all those things are allowed, using "resonable force", but this will of course depend on the nature of the crime.

---

Both of those things are extremely illegal in the united states.

Quote:

---

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal,

---

US law and morals would agree with you. But when someone breaks into your house you don't know if they are a just a robber.

I think people misinterpret what "property" means in context of the time. Hint: it doesn't mean your silverware or dvd's.

For sapi, from the same site:

Quote:

---

The Lott-Mustard Report

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

(Source: "More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

Whether or not one believes a portion of the drop in violent crime is due to "shall-issue" legislation, Lott's study provides strong evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not increase gun crime or fatal gun accident rates.

---

Quote:

---

1. That's an isolated example, and proves nothing. You need more than the evidence from one state to actually 'prove' something.

---

Hundreds of thousands of people in a state population of millions of people is an isolated example?

Quote:

---

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out.

---

Ridiculous. Are you just supposed to ask nicely whilst they steal what you've worked your life to obtain?

Quote:

---

It is counterproductive to have weapons in such cases, as they raise the level of threat posed by the victim and thus increase the chances of the criminal judging an assault or murder to be necessary.

---

Do you have any evidence for that silly reasoning? You think maybe criminals might decide not to attack when they face a greater threat? Or that it might be a more dangerous situation that prompts a person to draw a handgun to protect themselves?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, using a gun makes you less likely to be injured:

Quote:

---

Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice (1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes). He found victims that defended themselves with a gun against a robbery or an assault, had the least chance of being injured, or of having the crime completed. Doing nothing, trying to escape, reasoning with the offender, or physical resistance (other than with a gun), all had higher probabilities of injury and crime completion. Using more recent data, Lawrence Southwick Jr. found that "victims using guns were consistently less likely to lose cash or other property than other victims, and also establishing that this was true regardless of what weaponry was possessed or used by the offenders." Another study also "found that burglaries in which victims resisted with guns were far less likely to be completed." (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997, pp 170-71.)

A National Institute of Justice publication, Firearms and Violence, cites Kleck stating, "victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all.

---

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_g..._previous.html

So you're wrong.

A clarification on the lethal force thing; I'm not talking about shooting people in the back or other red herrings brought up. I'm saying that laws that forbid you from using a gun when confronted by a criminal who 'only' has a club or knife, or even just his fists, are wrong.

Quote:

---

If anything removing guns will benfit organized crime, think about it if your the only one who has illegaly smuggled in guns which you can not only use but sell for a massive price would you regard that as a failure?

---

Are you saying a mafioso, a 'made man', might push for a large city, like, say, Chicago, to ban handguns? How absurd! Or, not.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

So you're wrong.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Ah Kleck again , and how many studies question specifically the results offered as "proof" by Gary Kleck , moreover how many challenge both the NRAs and sites like guncite.coms use of his work and their lame attempts at rebuttals to criticism of what they publish ?


Remember he asked.....I still wait in eager anticipation of statistics which can conclusively prove this assertion ..... and you have still failed to deliver .
Now the problem you have is that you are trying to prove something , and for every study that supports that proof there is another that doesn't support it .
Why don't you go with the rather comprehensive one that you used in the debate that said it couldn't prove conclusively that answer A was true , but also that didn't mean that answer B was true either:idea2:

Oh sorry you didn't like the bit about answer B so you like to try and ignore itdon't you:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

I'm saying that laws that forbid you from using a gun when confronted by a criminal who 'only' has a club or knife, or even just his fists, are wrong.

---

Well those laws don't exist...

This is why I think we're getting side tracked into talking about the different laws in different countries. The laws of self defence are very similar around the world. In the UK (and I'm sure Australia too) you can defend yourself with a gun, if you legally own it.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Using lethal force against robbers is neither moral nor legal, as Myrdd pointed out.

---

Ridiculous. Are you just supposed to ask nicely whilst they steal what you've worked your life to obtain?

---

And there's nothing in between. Seriously, that response it a little worrying, even though it's an exaggeration, you seem to be trying to push the point that nothing less than the most deadly response is appropriate. Screw reasonable force, the more the merrier.

Quote:

---

Well those laws don't exist...

This is why I think we're getting side tracked into talking about the different laws in different countries. The laws of self defence are very similar around the world. In the UK (and I'm sure Australia too) you can defend yourself with a gun, if you legally own it.

---

Would the act of self defence be any left valid with an illegal gun?