Tried to rob the wrong house....

[Crazed Rabbit]

Took a long hard look at the last point... would still prefer not to have uk criminals armed to the teeth and me similarly disarmed rather than have both of us 'packing'

So you could have four men beating up on you instead of fleeing? I see.

What do we call that? Oh yes - property damage and endangering others.

Legally? I doubt it.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So you could have four men beating up on you instead of fleeing? I see.


Legally? I doubt it.

CR

Basic disconnet CR, again, on this issue. To some people, increasing the risk to your own life (even slightly) by using firearms for defense is not justified in the defense of one's property. Property is not viewed as integral to the individual as it is in our more Lockean system here in the USA. In fact, a number of others would probably assert that the increased risk to the intruder's life is not justified in the defense of property.

And it is an increased risk to you to possess firearms and actively use them to defend self or property. For the most part, it is rare for the armed intruder to kill the person who seeks to flee or passively awaits whatever the armed intruder chooses to do. If you produce a firearm, you actually do increase the statistical chance you'll end up dead, and even though you have greatly increased your chance to finish the encounter without material loss, many would not agree with the worth of such a choice.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Basic disconnet CR, again, on this issue. To some people, increasing the risk to your own life (even slightly) by using firearms for defense is not justified in the defense of one's property. Property is not viewed as integral to the individual as it is in our more Lockean system here in the USA. In fact, a number of others would probably assert that the increased risk to the intruder's life is not justified in the defense of property.

I didn't think we were talking about defense of property, but LittleGrizzly can clarify that.

And it is an increased risk to you to possess firearms and actively use them to defend self or property. For the most part, it is rare for the armed intruder to kill the person who seeks to flee or passively awaits whatever the armed intruder chooses to do. If you produce a firearm, you actually do increase the statistical chance you'll end up dead, and even though you have greatly increased your chance to finish the encounter without material loss, many would not agree with the worth of such a choice.

Hmm. Are you sure? I remember seeing data that suggests otherwise. Importantly, people using guns for defense faced more difficult circumstances (which might cause them to use guns in defense):

These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to to other self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances.

CR

[Xiahou]

Well, 4 men armed with assault rifles probably weren't there to steal his TV. I suspect they were there to assassinate someone.

There is significantly more to this story than 2nd amendment issues.

Nothing about this incident sounds random. The attackers sound more like hired killers and the victim's reaction seems to indicate he was expecting such an attack on some level.

[Idaho]

So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!

[Adrian II]

So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!

Oh God, speaking of shooting yourself in the foot...

[Xiahou]

So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!

I think that remains to be seen, but it's definitely an odd situation.

Regardless, even if the worst were true and this was a Mexican drug cartel's hit squad sent to take the guy out, the point that one armed man can hold off several better armed men, would stand even stronger. Whether the victim turns out to be a druglord or a the victim of mistaken identity, it still illustrates that point nicely.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that remains to be seen, but it's definitely an odd situation.

Regardless, even if the worst were true and this was a Mexican drug cartel's hit squad sent to take the guy out, the point that one armed man can hold off several better armed men, would stand even stronger. Whether the victim turns out to be a druglord or a the victim of mistaken identity, it still illustrates that point nicely.

And if there were claymore mines on the driveway it'd be better still.

[Devastatin Dave]

So what Dave is in fact bigging up is a feud between criminal gangs. Great! I'm gonna get me a shotgun!

Jump to conclusions much? Maybe the fact that the area in which the guy lives is infested with, well, anyway, sometimes citizens must take measures because the government won't do what its suppose to do because its too busy trying to save some sort of swamp mouse or assisting a homosexual congressman's boyfriends with their banks.
But I'd hate to generalise...

[Idaho]

assisting a homosexual congressman's boyfriends with their banks.
But I'd hate to generalise...

You are getting more and more Westboro Baptist by the week Dave

Nothing to do with global capitalism. Nothing to do with working people bailing out the failed projects of multi-millionaires.

No it's all about gays.