NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, but we include our suicide in that. So if you factor that out we are much safer.

Now enough with your statistical games.
But we commit more suicides per capita than you do, so it makes us even safer. stats are great.

Just out of curiosity...if someone breaks into your house and you have the right to shoot them in self defense, does that same principal not allow them to shoot you back?

i think i must be missing a major section of world history here...

1) i didn't know i had anything to be so grateful about???

2) when was the US a great nation? when it bombed 47 other countries in the last half of the twentieth century? when it initiated acts of genocide against various peoples? or when it killed 100,000 iraqi citizens, tortured some innocent people and brought instability, violence and appalling living conditions to iraq?
answers on a postcard

make sure they pay the postage, the handling fee from the US would be huge!

well then you are just plain ungrateful for the US, and what made it a great nation.


You're the one who told me I was from a screwed up country my friend.

Medal ?

What the hell are you talking about now.

im talking about your pathetic attempts to argue that america is good the way it is...and about you saying 'for all you know i could've been in combat'
maybe you should read before replying.

PS. paintballing doesnt count as combat

i think i must be missing a major section of world history here...

1) i didn't know i had anything to be so grateful about???

2) when was the US a great nation? when it bombed 47 other countries in the last half of the twentieth century? when it initiated acts of genocide against various peoples? or when it killed 100,000 iraqi citizens, tortured some innocent people and brought instability, violence and appalling living conditions to iraq?
answers on a postcard

Oh noes, I only hear what my leftist professor tells me.

STALINISM. I know you've never heard of it, but go look it up, think about it and then come and talk to me about history.

Until then you are woefully uniformed.

Well I don't know about anyone else but I can genuienly say arguing with the americans about guns decreases my intelligence like by a half-life per post read. If you're british and you're smart just dump this thread and let God sort them out.

Take out suicides. Adjust for general homocide.

Oh look, the UK is more dangerous than the US.

Plus we have far less burglary, (like by a seventh), go figure :rolleyes:

Erm, no, with or without suicide, deaths from gunshot wounds are many times higher in the US than in the UK. Assaults are higher in the UK because people are more likely to beat you up than shoot you. Total violent crime is higher in the US.

Well I don't know about anyone else but I can genuienly say arguing with the americans about guns decreases my intelligence like by a half-life per post read. If you're british and you're smart just dump this thread and let God sort them out.

Well, they did vote for Him.

It is right to defend myself and my property, in this thread we have been arguing over what exactly constitutes "a threat to myself and my property" . I for example consider the act of someone illegally entering my home to be a threat to myself and my property.You (I am making an educated guess here) do not.
We appear to be missing the wood for the trees here. I dont want to kill, however I would if I felt my family were in danger.
I realise we have a difference of opinion regarding the value of a criminals life. However the fact that I place no value on a criminals life does not mean I actually desire to kill them.
I am sure you don't. It's just that you are coming accross as if you do. Also there is no space in your arguement for proportional response. It might be fair to defend yourself against an armed intruder with a gun but what about an unarmed person. In either case should you not give a warningfirst? By shooting first and asking questions later you will seriously affect two lives. Your victim and yourself. It would be extremely niave to think that killing someone wouldn't have a serious effect on you as well and not likely for the better.

But we commit more suicides per capita than you do, so it makes us even safer. stats are great.

Ah but you don't count those as violent deaths because of your Godless communist ways. We do however, so it is an unfair comparison.

8) If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to protect my family from the intuder, if I have to, I may shoot the person.
9) I don't want to kill anybody.
10) If I kill an invader in my house, I won't feel bad about it.

And theres the bit that gives me problems......what makes you qualified to judge when it is necessary to shoot an intruder. Is what you consider necessary enforced on every other person in the country, or is it decided on a case by case basis. It sounds to me like it provides an all to easy excuse to shoot when there may not have been any real need.

I'm not saying this is true of you, however it will be true for a fair few people, and in my opinion a fair few is too much.

Just out of curiosity...if someone breaks into your house and you have the right to shoot them in self defense, does that same principal not allow them to shoot you back?

yes, but only if your house is also their house and instead of shooting guns you're squirting packets of ketchup at one another. Any other retarded questions?

Well I don't know about anyone else but I can genuienly say arguing with the americans about guns decreases my intelligence like by a half-life per post read. If you're british and you're smart just dump this thread and let God sort them out.
Agreed, I'm getting weary of going in circles. :headbang:

Erm, no, with or without suicide, deaths from gunshot wounds are many times higher in the US than in the UK. Assaults are higher in the UK because people are more likely to beat you up than shoot you. Total violent crime is higher in the US.

No. You have to understand, we count suicide in the gunshot death total. That's why it is higher. You don't

Shite, it's like shovelling fog.

No. You have to understand, we count suicide in the gunshot death total. That's why it is higher. You don't

Shite, it's like shovelling fog.

UK - a few dozen deaths per year from gunshot wounds.
US - 11000

I don't think that discrepancy is down to suicide.

Oh noes, I only hear what my leftist professor tells me.

STALINISM. I know you've never heard of it, but go look it up, think about it and then come and talk to me about history.

Until then you are woefully uniformed.

i know what stalin did to his people you presumtuous jerk.

stalinism....is that what bush is practising?
just because america / bush isn't as bad as the world's worst perpetrayor of genocide / homicide, does not mean that america is great!!!

in fact, america has bombed more countries than stalin ever did...and on the subject of genocide...what about the american indians?

go talk to some of them who know what's happened to their people over the past few centuries...they will tell you about genocide

yes, but only if your house is also their house and instead of shooting guns you're squirting packets of ketchup at one another. Any other retarded questions?

Not at this precise moment in time

*watches as entire point flies by, completely missed by someone who, lets see, is American*

Jeez, I'm really needing that rollseyes smilie around now guys.

And theres the bit that gives me problems......what makes you qualified to judge when it is necessary to shoot an intruder. Is what you consider necessary enforced on every other person in the country, or is it decided on a case by case basis. It sounds to me like it provides an all to easy excuse to shoot when there may not have been any real need.

To my knowledge, there are no laws against not shotting an intruder. There is, however, an understanding that I am a better judge of when it is necessary to shoot and intruder than some Politically Correct activist who wasn't in my position.

Not at this precise moment in time

*watches as entire point flies by, completely missed by someone who, lets see, is American*

Jeez, I'm really needing that rollseyes smilie around now guys.

:rolleyes:

UK - a few dozen deaths per year from gunshot wounds.
US - 11000

I don't think that discrepancy is down to suicide.

the actual figures there are 11000 (depending on the year) homicides using firearms...and homicides only make up 45% of deaths by firearms....
so america is even more screwed up.

Source: US Department of Justice website

To my knowledge, there are no laws against not shotting an intruder. There is, however, an understanding that I am a better judge of when it is necessary to shoot and intruder than some Politically Correct activist who wasn't in my position.


*applauds*

congrats, you appeared to have completely missed the second half of my post.

Well, they did vote for Him.

The american president doesn't represent all americans. In fact
it represents the minority at the moment. The americans are
not voting direcly (one vote per one human).

Ah but you don't count those as violent deaths because of your Godless communist ways. We do however, so it is an unfair comparison.
Actually neither do you in this study. Violent acts by other persons.
Godless yes
Communist no

UK - a few dozen deaths per year from gunshot wounds.
US - 11000

I don't think that discrepancy is down to suicide.

Yes because most of your deaths or suicides don't occur by gunshot.

Plus we count suicide as a violent crime and you don't.

Hence, it is safer here.

The american president doesn't represent all americans. In fact
it represents the minority at the moment. The americans are
not voting direcly (one vote per one human).

I was being facetious

Yes because most of your deaths or suicides don't occur by gunshot.

Plus we count suicide as a violent crime and you don't.

Hence, it is safer here.

hell yea we have sword fight duels :D

Actually neither do you in this study. Violent acts by other persons.
Godless yes
Communist no

Of course we do. Suicide is a criminal offence here. And a violent one to boot.

Yes because most of your deaths or suicides don't occur by gunshot.

Plus we count suicide as a violent crime and you don't.

Hence, it is safer here.


SAFER?!?!

*bites tongue from scathingly sarcastic comment*

hell yea we have sword fight duels :D

In my shire we usually play marbles first, and then the loser falls on his own sword. It leaves less blood on the hands of the victor, I find, what-what!

in fact, america has bombed more countries than stalin ever did...and on the subject of genocide...what about the american indians?

go talk to some of them who know what's happened to their people over the past few centuries...they will tell you about genocide

Good point, the first anti-gun laws in the US were the ones that made it illegal for Native Americans to own guns. This is part of the reason I am such a gun-loving-nut-job, it's because I don't want to see any repeats; call me crazy, but I'm not a big fan of genocide!

The american president doesn't represent all americans. In fact
it represents the minority at the moment. The americans are
not voting direcly (one vote per one human).


Yet he got a majority of the votes. Go figure :rolleyes:

Good point, the first anti-gun laws in the US were the ones that made it illegal for Native Americans to own guns. This is part of the reason I am such a gun-loving-nut-job, it's because I don't want to see any repeats; call me crazy, but I'm not a big fan of genocide!

That's not an argument against anti-gun laws, it's an argument against racial discrimination.

I was being facetious

Sorry, i have bad language skills.

SAFER?!?!

*bites tongue from scathingly sarcastic comment*

Yep, that's right.

Plus we even punish criminals here. Unheard of wherever you are from.

Good point, the first anti-gun laws in the US were the ones that made it illegal for Native Americans to own guns. This is part of the reason I am such a gun-loving-nut-job, it's because I don't want to see any repeats; call me crazy, but I'm not a big fan of genocide!

well surprisingly enough this genocide was going on right unti; the late 20th century...and may even be going on now...so the gun laws didn't help

Good point, the first anti-gun laws in the US were the ones that made it illegal for Native Americans to own guns. This is part of the reason I am such a gun-loving-nut-job, it's because I don't want to see any repeats; call me crazy, but I'm not a big fan of genocide!

Right, coz those guns are so much safer in the hands of George Bush. :rolleyes:

So not only are you incredibly racist and oppresive, but you have something of an ego-complex.

Sorry, i have bad language skills.

It's alright. I have shocking ball skills.

Yet he got a majority of the votes. Go figure :rolleyes:
I cant leave this one. He got a majority of the votes of those who voted. Turnout was a little over 50% That gives Bush way less than a majority. Therefore he is not a representative leader. And before you mention it neither is Blair, he has support of about 45% out of a turnout of around 67%.

Yet he got a majority of the votes. Go figure :rolleyes:

Did he? Direcly from people or mayby state representatives?

Right, coz those guns are so much safer in the hands of George Bush. :rolleyes:

So not only are you incredibly racist and oppresive, but you have something of an ego-complex.

Erm, he was pointing out that those gun laws were bad. Of course he misses the point that that doesn't make gun laws inherently bad.

Yep, that's right.

Plus we even punish criminals here. Unheard of wherever you are from.

You kill your criminals too in some states. Perhaps we should be learning from you in that respect too.

Naturally, however I am wondering whether it is the simple act of entering itself that poses the threat. Sure, if someone were to charge in waving a gun/knife/bat around then yep, definate threat. But just entering?
Yes, just entering. I realise you feel differently but to me the fact that someone would break into my house is, in and of itself a threat

Besides, surely by pulling out a gun you are simple exacerbating the situation.

I can see how you could think that- however I would consider it to be resolving rather than exacerbating the situation. If you had any respect, or cared at all for your family,Ad hominem and irrelevent you have no way of knowing that I do or do not respect and care for my family , to suggest that I do not simply because I disagree with you on the actions to take against a burglar seems both vulgar and rude. I have not personally attacked you, was I misguided to assume you would not personally attack me? It takes a really stupid person to pull a gun on an already armed person when you are the only one in the situation with something to loose.
That just confused me Im afraid. I have no way of knowing the intruder is armed until I actually see them- if I have not already armed myself it could very well be too late. Not everyone is qualified to dole out a fitting punishment Not everyone is qualified to rudely state that I do not care for or respect my family, but sometimes people do not allow lack of qualifications to restrain them;wouldnt you agree?, but by arming yourself and declaring yourself protectorate of your belongings you are assuming just that role.Indeed, I feel an obligation to defend my home and family, wierd eh?

Right, coz those guns are so much safer in the hands of George Bush. :rolleyes:

So not only are you incredibly racist and oppresive, but you have something of an ego-complex.

So now support the rights of all people to own guns is racist and egocentric... see, most people would dismiss you as a 'liberal' but I think the term 'insane' is more fitting.

Bloody hell dude read the thread! I have already posted that I would not kill a burglar in the UK.

My apologies. I didn't see your previous answer until after I posted the next question. I'm clear: you wouldn't shoot a burglar in the UK because it would be illegal, but you would shoot one in the USA, where such deeds are permitted.

So, what you're saying is that the only thing that would stop you from taking a human life in defence of your TV is: permission? As long as the state tells you not to, you won't, but if they say OK, you'll kill? Are you sure you're not a sociopath? You certainly seem to have the most elastic morality I've ever seen.

I cant leave this one. He got a majority of the votes of those who voted. Turnout was a little over 50% That gives Bush way less than a majority. Therefore he is not a representative leader. And before you mention it neither is Blair, he has support of about 45% out of a turnout of around 67%.

In a non-compulsory voting system it is assumed that those who did not vote give their tacit approval to the status quo.

Hence a majority for GWB.

ah the americans don't you think dozens of your troops in iraq are being attacked your army is not sufficient enough because all americans as a whole are too gung ho you see a spider that gave you a funny look and you shoot it

Considering how Christian America considers itself to be (the Christian right argues it won the election for Bush :( ), how come the country is so pro-gun.

Another reason I'm glad I live in the UK is the Bible - owning a gun with the intent to use it (as 99.9% of Americans do) is against what the Bible says.

Paul states that it is vital for you not to do wrong for wrong...Jesus said turn the other cheek...the Bible is littered with them.

What is wrong with chilling out and following what the Bible teaches?

After all, why shoot at someone to kill them when God will send them to Hell to suffer eternal pain and damnation...and you will be following them. Guns kinda suck compared to God really.

You kill your criminals too in some states. Perhaps we should be learning from you in that respect too.


Now you are getting it.

It is called deterrence.

In a non-compulsory voting system it is assumed that those who did not vote give their tacit approval to the status quo.

Hence a majority for GWB.
Yes a majority of votes buy not a representative leader. You cannot say that a majority of the country support him as nearly three quarters of the electorate chose not to vote for him.
Oh and assumed by whom?

In a non-compulsory voting system it is assumed that those who did not vote give their tacit approval to the status quo.

Hence a majority for GWB.

no it is dumbass...in a non-compulsory voting system it is assumed that those who did not vote have no opinion, are indifferent between any candidate, and have no right to influence the outcome.

Hence 'GWB' (Guns War Bombs?) did not get a majority.
Oh, and last time around, Al Gore got a majority...that didn't help him in your great country did it?

Yes a majority of votes buy not a representative leader. You cannot saay that a majority of the country support him as nearly three quarters of the electorate chose not to vote for him.

Do you have reading problems?

The ones who did not vote are assumed to support the status quo. THE STATUS QUO BEING GWB.

Hence a majority.

That's how it works.

Now you are getting it.

It is called deterrence.

The death penalty isn't deterence, by any stretch of the imagination.

Considering how Christian America considers itself to be (the Christian right argues it won the election for Bush :( ), how come the country is so pro-gun.

Another reason I'm glad I live in the UK is the Bible - owning a gun with the intent to use it (as 99.9% of Americans do) is against what the Bible says.

Paul states that it is vital for you not to do wrong for wrong...Jesus said turn the other cheek...the Bible is littered with them.

What is wrong with chilling out and following what the Bible teaches?

After all, why shoot at someone to kill them when God will send them to Hell to suffer eternal pain and damnation...and you will be following them. Guns kinda suck compared to God really.

well, that's why I'm glad we have a little thing called the separtation of Church and State here in America.

Still, Jesus does warn us against 'casting our pearls before swine.'

no it is dumbass...in a non-compulsory voting system it is assumed that those who did not vote have no opinion, are indifferent between any candidate, and have no right to influence the outcome.

Hence 'GWB' (Guns War Bombs?) did not get a majority.
Oh, and last time around, Al Gore got a majority...that didn't help him in your great country did it?

and the winner is...... Akka-Akka :D

Of course we do. Suicide is a criminal offence here. And a violent one to boot.
No you don't.
In the US total death for violence including suicides per 100 000 is 18.57.
Homicide is 5.7 (varies from 5.5 to 6.7)


e.g.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

That just confused me Im afraid. I have no way of knowing the intruder is armed until I actually see them- if I have not already armed myself it could very well be too late.

Then allow me to spell it out. You find an intruder in your house...he is armed but has yet to pull his weapon. I doubt his intention is to shoot you, unless you have seriously offended alot of people. By arming yourself you are giving him a reason to pull his opwn weapon and therefore try to shoot. This would not have happened had you not just let him nick whatever he wanted.

So unless the majority of people in America who break into houses are murderers, you have just made the situation worse by being armed. If the majority would shoot an unarmed person then America has much bigger problems than its gun laws.

The death penalty isn't deterence, by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh yes it is.

People don't want it do they?

So they will try and avoid it.

Hence it deters

Do you have reading problems?

The ones who did not vote are assumed to support the status quo. THE STATUS QUO BEING GWB.

Hence a majority.

That's how it works.
No need to be insulting. My point is why do you assume they support the status quo? More likely they see no choice between the candidates or think they will be equally bad. An uncast vote is as significant as a cast one in a democratic system.

and the winner is...... Akka-Akka :D

and he'd like to thank his friends and family... :fluffle: ...that's his wife...

Then allow me to spell it out. You find an intruder in your house...he is armed but has yet to pull his weapon. I doubt his intention is to shoot you, unless you have seriously offended alot of people. By arming yourself you are giving him a reason to pull his opwn weapon and therefore try to shoot. This would not have happened had you not just let him nick whatever he wanted.

So unless the majority of people in America who break into houses are murderers, you have just made the situation worse by being armed. If the majority would shoot an unarmed person then America has much bigger problems than its gun laws.


Speculative nonsense.

How do you know what their intent is.

I would say that a prima facie case has been made for their violent intent by the very fact that they are armed.

Oh yes it is.

People don't want it do they?

So they will try and avoid it.

Hence it deters

Prove it. Show me the figures that show that the death penalty reduces crime.

Oh yes it is.

People don't want it do they?

So they will try and avoid it.

Hence it deters
Then why do you still have criminals?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4038241.stm

In the UK, if someone breaks into your house, you can't do anything about it... if you do, the burglar can file charges on you. If someone breaks into my American home, I can shoot them.. and here in Texas, I can follow them outside and shoot them. This is what I'm thankful for this year... I'm thankful my country protects the rights of property owners more than the rights of criminals.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

Nuff said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4038241.stm

In the UK, if someone breaks into your house, you can't do anything about it... if you do, the burglar can file charges on you. If someone breaks into my American home, I can shoot them.. and here in Texas, I can follow them outside and shoot them. This is what I'm thankful for this year... I'm thankful my country protects the rights of property owners more than the rights of criminals.

I can't be arsed reading all the threads here.

This is a typical gung-ho American response to legislation in another country which has absolutely no effect on them.

Next time a family member gets shot in America because they came home late, had lost their keys and had to break a window to get in I wonder if the shooter will feel justified in claiming insurance to bury their dead son or daughter?
In the UK you can use reasonable force to tackle a burgler in your home, we can also make citizen arrests which are just as legal as a policeman arresting you.
Ask yourself what is more important...a life (anyones life, criminal or not) or property.

If you answer property you are probably a red - neck American with no regard for life.

Speaking as a subject of the Crown, I have to concede partially to the instigator of this thread in that I agree that the British laws on self-defence and defending your own family/property probably need reviewing. However, simply saying the UK is full of wimps is possibly one of the most arrogant, ill-educated and stereotypical things I have ever heard.

When will some of the people in the United States realise that their country is not the greatest thing that ever graced the earth? I know someone in Texas, who is an intelligent and sweet girl and a good friend. You, sir give Texans a bad name with your narrow-minded, xenophobic, trigger-happy ideals that is one of the main reasons why many people stereotype the United States in such a way.

Rant over.

So unless the majority of people in America who break into houses are murderers, you have just made the situation worse by being armed. If the majority would shoot an unarmed person then America has much bigger problems than its gun laws.

were not talking about 'statistics' or the 'majority' or anything else -- we're talking about the one guy that is in your house at this very momment. Even if only 1/2 of 1% of home intruders were also murderer/rapsits, that's still not a risk I'm willing to take or subject my family to.

Speculative nonsense.

How do you know what their intent is.

I would say that a prima facie case has been made for their violent intent by the very fact that they are armed.

It's not speculative. If they'd intended to shoot you they already would have. So pulling your gun only incites them into doing something they wouldn't have otherwise done. They don't want to be wanted for murder as well, do they?

Speculative nonsense.

How do you know what their intent is.

I would say that a prima facie case has been made for their violent intent by the very fact that they are armed.

Or perhaps they are armed because they expect you to be armed.

And I wouldn't say it was speculative, unless you seriously want to argue that the majority of the American population possess the desire to kill.

Either way the very law that allows you your gun allows the criminal to have it too....are you seeing how not allowing guns would solve one hell of alot of that problem instantly. :headbang:

well, that's why I'm glad we have a little thing called the separtation of Church and State here in America.

Stifling a giggle here.

Did anyone else notice Bush banging on about preying after NASA lost a shuttle crew? Appealing to the creationist heartlands to get elected. Nice.

Speaking as a subject of the Crown, I have to concede partially to the instigator of this thread in that I agree that the British laws on self-defence and defending your own family/property probably need reviewing. However, simply saying the UK is full of wimps is possibly one of the most arrogant, ill-educated and stereotypical things I have ever heard.

When will some of the people in the United States realise that their country is not the greatest thing that ever graced the earth? I know someone in Texas, who is an intelligent and sweet girl and a good friend. You, sir give Texans a bad name with your narrow-minded, xenophobic, trigger-happy ideals that is one of the main reasons why many people stereotype the United States in such a way.

Rant over.

*applause*

Now you are getting it.

It is called deterrence.

Yes deterrance works, thats why the US no longer has any violent crime!!
Why don't you try rehabilitation like the rest of the civilised countrys in the world?

Oh yes it is.

People don't want it do they?

So they will try and avoid it.

Hence it deters

No, it doesn't. People try to avoid the death penalty not by avoiding any activity punishable by death, but by attempting to avoid detection and capture. The world is not full of people sitting around, saying, "Ooh, I'd kill that guy if it wasn't for the darned death penalty!" Countries which abolish the death penalty do not experience surges in their murder rates. Therefore, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

No need to be insulting. My point is why do you assume they support the status quo? More likely they see no choice between the candidates or think they will be equally bad. An uncast vote is as significant as a cast one in a democratic system.

I apologize if my tone was harsh. I didn't mean it that way. :fluffle:

Nevertheless, despite what they may actually prefer, the fact is because they did not bother to vote it is assumed that they are okay with the staus quo.

Anything else would make a mockery of the system unless 90% voted, which doesn't happen anywhere where voting is optional.

I, personally, would like to adopt the Australian system to clear this crap up, but until then.. it is what it is.

So yes. GWB does speak for a majority.

Anything else would make a mockery of the system unless 90% voted, which doesn't happen anywhere where voting is optional.

Switzerland

Oh yes it is.

People don't want it do they?

So they will try and avoid it.

Hence it deters

no it's not.
the death sentance does not deter crimes of passion leading to homicide...
nor does deterrance work elsewhere.

if iraq had wmds, why did US invade.

everyone knows eating bad food makes you fatter...smoking gives you lung cancer.
why are so many people obese and smoking?

My apologies. I didn't see your previous answer until after I posted the next question. No worries.So, what you're saying is that the only thing that would stop you from taking a human life in defence of your TV is: permission?
The law is the law, I may not agree with it but I am obliged to obey it. As long as the state tells you not to, you won't, but if they say OK, you'll kill? If the law were changed to allow homeowners to more vigorously defend their homes and families then I would indeed feel legally able to vigorously defend my home and family. Are you sure you're not a sociopath? Come on now, there are enough people flamin in this thread without you joinin in mate.You certainly seem to have the most elastic morality I've ever seen.I am hardly unique in my moral stance, I'm not the only person to consider criminals to be worth less than everyone else.

without the right to be safe in one's home and property there are no other rights. a country that doesn't recognize that is barbaric.

No, it doesn't. People try to avoid the death penalty not by avoiding any activity punishable by death, but by attempting to avoid detection and capture. The world is not full of people sitting around, saying, "Ooh, I'd kill that guy if it wasn't for the darned death penalty!" Countries which abolish the death penalty do not experience surges in their murder rates. Therefore, the death penalty is not a deterrent.


The UK did.

As did the US, in the hippie days of abolished death penalty.

BTW, most people in the UK are for the death penalty, when is democracy going to start working there.

no it's not.
the death sentance does not deter crimes of passion leading to homicide...
nor does deterrance work elsewhere.

if iraq had wmds, why did US invade.

everyone knows eating bad food makes you fatter...smoking gives you lung cancer.
why are so many people obese and smoking?

Damn! I wish my reply had been that good

The UK did.

As did the US, in the hippie days of abolished death penalty.

BTW, most people in the UK are for the death penalty, when is democracy going to start working there.


Do you have proof that most people in the UK are for the death penalty?

without the right to be safe in one's home and property there are no other rights. a country that doesn't recognize that is barbaric.
Woohoo, I assume I live in a barbaric country then. yay!

Speaking as a subject of the Crown, I have to concede partially to the instigator of this thread in that I agree that the British laws on self-defence and defending your own family/property probably need reviewing. However, simply saying the UK is full of wimps is possibly one of the most arrogant, ill-educated and stereotypical things I have ever heard.

When will some of the people in the United States realise that their country is not the greatest thing that ever graced the earth? I know someone in Texas, who is an intelligent and sweet girl and a good friend. You, sir give Texans a bad name with your narrow-minded, xenophobic, trigger-happy ideals that is one of the main reasons why many people stereotype the United States in such a way.

Rant over.

I was considering changing the title, especially after so many members of the UK joined in on the side of rationality. But then it hit me: you fuckers still recognize the Monarchy and allowed the government to take away your guns and with it, the right to protect yourselves. If they did that in America, there would have been a violent revolution. The title stays.

Also, you should feel free to put up a thread calling Americans, or even Texas a bunch of Assholes or Heartless Bastards and make it about our lack of any modern Health Care System or the number of Unwed Teenage Pregnancies... you'ld be justified. But for all that we are, we're not wimps -- the UK clearly is.

BTW, most people in the UK are for the death penalty, when is democracy going to start working there.

That's not entirely true. Most Daily Mail readers are for the death penalty.

What about all the innocent people that are executed?
I assume they've been sufficiently deterred.
I do, however, have to agree on the other point.
I'm not going to approach an intruder in my house and ask if he's just going to take my VCR or murder me.
Oh, and Texastambul, you've put an obviously generalizing and bordering on racist title (and posts) here just to sound controversial.
What a price we've had to pay over here!
With the small evil of the monarchy, we've never been fussed with Communism, Fascism or blind, fervent, ridiculous patriotism and extreme, mindless, far-right religion.
Oh, and we're not able to shoot each other randomly on the street!
Damn! Is this the price we pay for relatively low gun crime and murder rates? When will we learn?

Speaking as a subject of the Crown, I have to concede partially to the instigator of this thread in that I agree that the British laws on self-defence and defending your own family/property probably need reviewing. However, simply saying the UK is full of wimps is possibly one of the most arrogant, ill-educated and stereotypical things I have ever heard.

When will some of the people in the United States realise that their country is not the greatest thing that ever graced the earth? I know someone in Texas, who is an intelligent and sweet girl and a good friend. You, sir give Texans a bad name with your narrow-minded, xenophobic, trigger-happy ideals that is one of the main reasons why many people stereotype the United States in such a way.

Rant over.

*MASSIVE APPLAUSE ACCOMPANIED BY CHEERING*

Couldn't have put it better myself - well said!!! :D

So yes. GWB does speak for a majority.

GWB must speak for a silent majority then...

and he acts unilaterally against things that do not concern him (eg. Iraq), where the global majority is against him.

9/11 was a disgusting and horibble thing.
did the individuals who died deserve it? No

did the country deserve it for the actions of ALL their leaders? Yes

Or perhaps they are armed because they expect you to be armed.

And I wouldn't say it was speculative, unless you seriously want to argue that the majority of the American population possess the desire to kill.

Either way the very law that allows you your gun allows the criminal to have it too....are you seeing how not allowing guns would solve one hell of alot of that problem instantly. :headbang:


Nope, carrying a gun while commiting a felony is a crime.

HENCE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY IT.

And let me get your logic right. Some guy, who breaks into my house wanting to do god knows what, feels the need to be armed because I may lawfully posses a gun.

Frankly that just indicates to me his violent intent. He is expecting a showdown, isn't he?

Let me ask you this, would you have a problem if I chopped his head off with a samuri sword?

I apologize if my tone was harsh. I didn't mean it that way. :fluffle:

Nevertheless, despite what they may actually prefer, the fact is because they did not bother to vote it is assumed that they are okay with the staus quo.

Anything else would make a mockery of the system unless 90% voted, which doesn't happen anywhere where voting is optional.

I, personally, would like to adopt the Australian system to clear this crap up, but until then.. it is what it is.

So yes. GWB does speak for a majority.
I'm sorry but that is just semantics. He speaks for a majority of those who voted. Nothing else. Different poeple will assume different things about non-voters. In the UK the assumtion is that they don't like the choices on offer.
I tend to think these days that compulsory voting is a better idea as at least it removes this kind of problem of government legitamacy.

That's not entirely true. Most Daily Mail readers are for the death penalty.

Telegraph, Sun, Star, Times &ct.

But I guess since the guardian doesn't like it, it must speak for the majority.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

Nuff said.

We europeans know you people exist. Thats why we are worried
about america.

That's not entirely true. Most Daily Mail readers are for the death penalty.
He, he, he. Well put!

GWB must speak for a silent majority then...



All GWB speaks for is a majority of nodding yes-men.

Why is everyone so railed up about this? Americans shooting Americans. Who cares? They have my blessings.

Okay, I'm guilty of it too, but let's try to stay on-topic a little bit here: This is a thread about the UK's laws that defend the 'rights' of criminals to safely rob someone's home.

It is not about the Bible, Jesus, George Bush, the Iraq War, Genocide, STDs or 9/11.

did the country deserve it for the actions of ALL their leaders? Yes


Nice. Real big of you there. Most of those people didn't even vote for Bush.


Well now I know where you stand.

But I can't shoot an intruder.

What's that word.... oh yes HYPOCRITE. :rolleyes:

Why is everyone so railed up about this? Americans shooting Americans. Who cares? They have my blessings.

LOL :)

I live in the UK and if someone was burgling my house i'd propbably hit them in the head with my golf club, it wouldn't kill them but just knock them out for a while until the police eventually turned up. That is what i'd call a suitable amount of force used against them.

If i did live in America then i'd try the inflict as much damage on them as possible because it would be there own fault for trying to rob my house.

Telegraph, Sun, Star, Times &ct.

But I guess since the guardian doesn't like it, it must speak for the majority.

Well done, you've picked out all of the right-wing, xenophobic British press. Well, they must speak for the majority, mustn't they? Actually, the Times aren't that bad.

Come on now, there are enough people flamin in this thread without you joinin in mate.I am hardly unique in my moral stance, I'm not the only person to consider criminals to be worth less than everyone else.

Not intended as a flame. There are many sociopaths at large in society. A common feature is that they have a low regard for the wellbeing of other people, and tend to place their own comfort and convenience first in all things. This is probably why a lot of "successful" people are sociopaths, to varying degrees: if you don't give a shit about who's face you stamp on, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to climb life's various greasy poles. It is even possible to be a sociopath and yet lead a fruitful, even socially productive, life.

I admit that there is very little evidence in this thread to make a diagnosis, but to be frank I find your approach to the issue of taking a human life either a) adolescent or b) sociopathic.

Why is everyone so railed up about this? Americans shooting Americans. Who cares? They have my blessings.

because they are human beings and deserve (even have the right) to not have the menace of a gun culture hanging over their heads.
okay, so it's not going to affect me if several thousand more americans burn in hell because of their views on guns...but as a Christian I feel it my responsibility to point out that they are wrong

I'm sorry but that is just semantics. He speaks for a majority of those who voted. Nothing else. Different poeple will assume different things about non-voters. In the UK the assumtion is that they don't like the choices on offer.
I tend to think these days that compulsory voting is a better idea as at least it removes this kind of problem of government legitamacy.

No, it is how, in fact the system works. If they really cared they would vote.

Do you want to start buggering about with these numbers in other countries too. Because pretty soon, no government will be legitimate.

because they are human beings and deserve (even have the right) to not have the menace of a gun culture hanging over their heads.
okay, so it's not going to affect me if several thousand more americans burn in hell because of their views on guns...but as a Christian I feel it my responsibility to point out that they are wrong
Fair enough. In that case I'm glad I'm not a Christian. So I won't lose any sleep over it.

Then allow me to spell it out.
Ok thenYou find an intruder in your house...he is armed but has yet to pull his weapon. Then how can I tell he is armed?If I wait to see if he does pull a weapon I am risking being shot- if I simply shot him the instant I establish he isnt known to me then I have risked nothing.I doubt his intention is to shoot you,
So do I , but hes already broken into my house so I am gonna play it safe and assume that he could intend violence, by shooting him I am protecting my wife and kids from from harm By arming yourself you are giving him a reason to pull his opwn weapon hmm I dont think we are gonna reach a consensus here- would you also assert that by owning a TV I am giving him a reason to break into my home and steal it? This would not have happened had you not just let him nick whatever he wanted. This also would not have happened if he hadnt broken into my home.He is perfectly free to work to get the money to get whatever he wanted, the instant he broke into my home he put himself, and my family at risk. I would rather shoot the burglar than wait to see if he attempts to harm my family.

Nope, carrying a gun while commiting a felony is a crime.

HENCE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY IT.

And let me get your logic right. Some guy, who breaks into my house wanting to do god knows what, feels the need to be armed because I may lawfully posses a gun.

Frankly that just indicates to me his violent intent. He is expecting a showdown, isn't he?

Let me ask you this, would you have a problem if I chopped his head off with a samuri sword?

You know what, I give up. Frankly my IQ must have dropped several points since I entered this thread. Not only are you too arrogant and self-absorbed to realise that you may not be right, you are petrified that someone might take your gun away from you, thus leaving you to look at a situation rationally before shooting. Guns never help, I cannot think of a single situation in which a gun could make a situation better. If you want to shoot an intruder go right ahead....I just hope that when the time comes you manage to convince yourslef his death was completely necessary. At the end of the day you are forgetting that it is the life of another person you are taking into your hands, so I hope you have the level head you are obviously not demonstrating here and assess the situation before you shoot. Hell, I'd hate to think you jumped right in and shot pre-emptively when there was in fact no need. After, I doubt criminals have families...or the right to live.

Nice. Real big of you there. Most of those people didn't even vote for Bush.


Well now I know where you stand.

But I can't shoot an intruder.

What's that word.... oh yes HYPOCRITE. :rolleyes:

yes...well if you read the bit you quoted...it said ALL their leaders...I'm talking Clinton, the other Bush scum, Nixon, Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt...all of them

Well done, you've picked out all of the right-wing, xenophobic British press. Well, they must speak for the majority, mustn't they? Actually, the Times aren't that bad.

The Sun, I'll have you know, is britains best selling daily.

Then how can I tell he is armed?If I wait to see if he does pull a weapon I am risking being shot- if I simply shot him the instant I establish he isnt known to me then I have risked nothing.

Wow, I never knew someone could manage to successfully assess the American way of life so astutely.

I think the fact that there are more admissions into hospital for serious gun wounds or deaths in the US state of Florida ALONE than in the UK and most of Europe speaks for itself.

In my opinion the right allowing guns to be wielded around the US is a typo

The Sun, I'll have you know, is britains best selling daily.

And how many of those purchasers, pray tell, buy it for its political content?

Fair enough. In that case I'm glad I'm not a Christian. So I won't lose any sleep over it.

i doubt you will be feeling that joy during the eternity of suffering you will get in hell...but that's your problem. Try reading the Bible and going to Church...Jesus does amazing things.

The Sun, I'll have you know, is britains best selling daily.
Its a piece of crap tho man, be honest ;)

Okay, I'm guilty of it too, but let's try to stay on-topic a little bit here: This is a thread about the UK's laws that defend the 'rights' of criminals to safely rob someone's home.

It is not about the Bible, Jesus, George Bush, the Iraq War, Genocide, STDs or 9/11.


Your over simplifying things, there are no rights for criminals to "safely" rob someones house in the uk, criminals have NO right to be in your house uninvited but we DO have the right to protect ourselves from them, we simply do not have the right to shoot them and seeing as in the UK 99.9% of the population do not have a firearm in their homes there is little chance of a criminal getting shot, it is also very rare for a criminal to enter a house and shoot the owner, despite it being easier for a crim to get a gun.

The laws that you refer to are taken out of context by the UK press and sensationalised to make it look like the criminal has more rights than his victim.
I would quite happily beat a burglar with a baseball bat if I caught him in my house, secure in the knowledge that as long as I didn't kill him I would almost certainly NOT face criminal charges myself.

yes...well if you read the bit you quoted...it said ALL their leaders...I'm talking Clinton, the other Bush scum, Nixon, Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt...all of them

Ok. Well I'll give you the alternative to the US being in existence.

Give all your property away. Take a plane to siberia, and die.

Because that is what the other side planned for you. Intelectual.

The Sun, I'll have you know, is britains best selling daily.


because of Page3 I assume?

because of Page3 I assume?

You forgot all the tell-all stories of Beckham's affairs.

Its a piece of crap tho man, be honest ;)

No, I enjoy it.

And it is still the best seller, whatever people say about "fox" news. ;)

No, I enjoy it.

And it is still the best seller, whatever people say about "fox" news. ;)

Be honest, do you buy it for its in-depth political and social insights?

because of Page3 I assume?

I only read it for the sports pages. They have the best coverage. ;)

i doubt you will be feeling that joy during the eternity of suffering you will get in hell...but that's your problem.
:D Can't wait.
Jesus does amazing things.
Yeah, he put's me to sleep easier then a six pack of beer.

You forgot all the tell-all stories of Beckham's affairs.
add to that the tell-all stories of anyone's affairs!!!

And that explains why there are 4 times the amount of peope that die from gun shots in the States then in any other first world country.

Be honest, do you buy it for its in-depth political and social insights?

No I read the WSJ for that. :rolleyes:

The Sun, I'll have you know, is britains best selling daily.

And? The small-c conservative Sunday Post was Scotland's best-selling Sunday paper for decades, reaching a peak readership of almost 75% of the nation -- and yet Scotland was and is solidly left-wing. I don't know about you, but most of the poeple I know don't inhale their opinions straight from a newspaper. Especially not a trash rag that's read largely for cheap yucks, titties and football.

And that explains why there are 4 times the amount of peope that die from gun shots in the States then in any other first world country.

exactly

Ok. Well I'll give you the alternative to the US being in existence.

Give all your property away. Take a plane to siberia, and die.

Because that is what the other side planned for you. Intelectual.

oh, the other side being russia now?

since when were we at war with russia?

here's the alternative to the US not being in existance:

A Britain still strong enough to prevent any world wars even happening...a Britain and a world without the communist revolution of 1917...a world without George W. Bush...

That sounds damn fine to me...even if your analysis of it is pathetically myopic.

Finally...I'm pleased to be 'intellectual' enough to spell the word correctly, thankyou very much.

I believe at this point, as we have now descended into a discussion of crappy tabloid newspapers, I should reveal myself as a parody character.

More specifically, look at the last thread I started, that should clue you all in.

Nevertheless, it’s been great fun, and I hope you guys have enjoyed this as much as I have.

In closing, the things I posted, in no way represent my real views.


I enjoyed it though. Thanks guys. :)

I think I have the solution: See, all of you criminal loving liberal-guilt addicts should put up signs that say, "I Respect the Rights of Criminals to Safely Invade My House," that way the thieves will skip robbing my house (where it isn't safe to break-in) and go to yours. This is really the best thing you could do to insure their safetly, and it will further eliminate the risk associated with stealing things from people's homes. Plus, this way I don't have to kill some dipshit because he'll be over at your place enjoying tea and cookies. Everybody wins!

I believe at this point, as we have now descended into a discussion of crappy tabloid newspapers, I should reveal myself as a parody character.

More specifically, look at the last thread I started, that should clue you all in.

Nevertheless, it’s been great fun, and I hope you guys have enjoyed this as much as I have.

In closing, the things I posted, in no way represent my real views.


I enjoyed it though. Thanks guys. :)
Lol i suspected as much. Well fought!

or another alternative...

Britain never lost the War of Independence, kept all her colonies, the good old US of A would be a mere colony and its inhabitants kept under good british laws... or, even better, because we still had all colonies = waste germany in wws and then take on the whole world **DAKKA*DAKKA**, no, sorry, thats the American Dream...

unfortunately I have to leave this discussion now...fun as it was listening to Americans explain in minute detail just how bad their country is...

Chow

I believe at this point, as we have now descended into a discussion of crappy tabloid newspapers, I should reveal myself as a parody character.

More specifically, look at the last thread I started, that should clue you all in.

Nevertheless, it’s been great fun, and I hope you guys have enjoyed this as much as I have.

In closing, the things I posted, in no way represent my real views.


I enjoyed it though. Thanks guys. :)

You bastard. I wondered how you suddenly became British.

Lol i suspected as much. Well fought!


Thanks.

I take my little parodies seriously.

I hope you enjoyed it too.

You bastard. I wondered how you suddenly became British.

I should add:

:D

Thanks.

I take my little parodies seriously.

I hope you enjoyed it too.
After I saw the point it was great fun :)

I believe at this point, as we have now descended into a discussion of crappy tabloid newspapers, I should reveal myself as a parody character.

More specifically, look at the last thread I started, that should clue you all in.

Nevertheless, it’s been great fun, and I hope you guys have enjoyed this as much as I have.

In closing, the things I posted, in no way represent my real views.


I enjoyed it though. Thanks guys. :)
Well done. But you did mix countries a bit too much.."I told you I live in UK" and then keep talking as you're living in the states.

or I mixed you with someone else.
:D

I should add:

:D


Thanks,

it was fun.

Thanks,

it was fun.

And it caused me to fall even further behind in my job. Oh well.

to be frank I find your approach to the issue of taking a human life either a) adolescent or b) sociopathic.
Thats fair enough, (although I disagree with your assessment ;))you clearly value the lives of criminals- I dont. Theres no reason for us to fall out.

And it caused me to fall even further behind in my job. Oh well.
ditto, oops!

My, what a lot of love this thread is suddenly generating.

Well done. But you did mix countries a bit too much.."I told you I live in UK" and then keep talking as you're living in the states.

or I mixed you with someone else.
:D

I think I was pretty consistent.

Maybe, you have me confused with Brit, though I could have made a mistake.

I guess it was the switch of with the newspapers.

If anyone has any style pointers, please TG me. I'd love to hear them before my next "act".

I think I was pretty consistent.

Maybe, you have me confused with Brit, though I could have made a mistake.

I guess it was the switch of with the newspapers.

If anyone has any style pointers, please TG me. I'd love to hear them before my next "act".

You'll have to be very convincing, though, or appear as a different nation. No one will trust you again!

My, what a lot of love this thread is suddenly generating.

Hell baby, you know I love you!

I think I was pretty consistent.

Maybe, you have me confused with Brit, though I could have made a mistake.


No, I quess it was someone else, obviously Brittanic.

You'll have to be very convincing, though, or appear as a different nation. No one will trust you again!

You'd be suprised.

No-one remebers the fatwah against michael moore.

But don't blow it if you see me round again okay.

You'd be suprised.

No-one remebers the fatwah against michael moore.

But don't blow it if you see me round again okay.
No worries, might even join in
:p

No worries, might even join in
:p

I'd be tempted to join in, but I think everyone knows me too well now. I'd have to be very subtle.

I'd be tempted to join in, but I think everyone knows me too well now. I'd have to be very subtle.

well you could always play the "objective" part, trying to see things my way while not agreeing with them.

that could even lend more force to the parody.

well you could always play the "objective" part, trying to see things my way while not agreeing with them.

that could even lend more force to the parody.
Thats what I had in mind.

well you could always play the "objective" part, trying to see things my way while not agreeing with them.

that could even lend more force to the parody.

Yeah, I was thinking that. You could slowly win me round.

Yeah, I was thinking that. You could slowly win me round.

Brilliant.

I'll show up again in about a month or so.

Do you want me to TG you first.

The Sun, I'll have you know, is britains best selling daily.

Yes, because it doesn't require its readers to think. And because birds get their tits out on page 3.

Thats what I had in mind.


I'll TG you too before my next foray.

It'll be great.

Brilliant.

I'll show up again in about a month or so.

Do you want me to TG you first.

No, I'll be around if I'm around.

I'll TG you too before my next foray.

It'll be great.
Cool

To the Tony Martin apologists:

He shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. He deserved everything he got.

Sounds like it's all over....who won? And did anyone get shot?

Sounds like it's all over....who won? And did anyone get shot?
A no score draw with reality the only casualty.

Reading thru the first few pages of posts, it seems to me that the US is trapped in a circular argument:
1. In the US you're legally entitled to shoot someone on your property without first ascertaining whether they're a risk to yourself or your family or whether they are commiting or even intending to commit a crime;
2. Because of this, it would seem the most logical step for would-be burglars or anyone else intending to commit a criminal act on private property would be to go in armed - that way you can fire back in self-defence while making an escape or at least use it to threaten the owners/lodgers into giving up more of their possessions;
3. Because the burglars are now armed, this means home-owners now need to have weapons to protect themselves against the potential armed invaders;
4. Since in some states it's a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 yrs for concealed possession of a firearm while committing a crime, it is also logical to assume that when faced with being apprehended by a homeowner, a burglar is likely to try shooting their way to safety;
5. Also, since most burglars are repeat offenders, and many states have the '3 strikes' policy, someone on 2 strikes is more probable to use a weapon as any crime they are apprehended for now carries the same sentence (life).

And of course all the above (#2 to #5) are the reasons use for the law stated in #1.

In Britain, and elsewhere, a homeowner at least has the knowledge that the huge majority of burglars are going in unarmed, as there's no danger in being shot by the homeowner.
Since the burglars are only after possessions, they're most likely not going to commit an act of violence, as that carries a far more severe sentence than petty theft.

So hard to resist.

Must have control.

A no score draw with reality the only casualty.


Much as I suspected.

Much as I suspected.

read the last few pages, I make a lot of good points.

read the last few pages, I make a lot of good points.


I was away for several pages so I'll do that. I'm sure you did.

Reading thru the first few pages of posts, it seems to me that the US is trapped in a circular argument:
1. In the US you're legally entitled to shoot someone on your property without first ascertaining whether they're a risk to yourself or your family or whether they are commiting or even intending to commit a crime;
2. Because of this, it would seem the most logical step for would-be burglars or anyone else intending to commit a criminal act on private property would be to go in armed - that way you can fire back in self-defence while making an escape or at least use it to threaten the owners/lodgers into giving up more of their possessions;
3. Because the burglars are now armed, this means home-owners now need to have weapons to protect themselves against the potential armed invaders;
4. Since in some states it's a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 yrs for concealed possession of a firearm while committing a crime, it is also logical to assume that when faced with being apprehended by a homeowner, a burglar is likely to try shooting their way to safety;
5. Also, since most burglars are repeat offenders, and many states have the '3 strikes' policy, someone on 2 strikes is more probable to use a weapon as any crime they are apprehended for now carries the same sentence (life).

And of course all the above (#2 to #5) are the reasons use for the law stated in #1.

In Britain, and elsewhere, a homeowner at least has the knowledge that the huge majority of burglars are going in unarmed, as there's no danger in being shot by the homeowner.
Since the burglars are only after possessions, they're most likely not going to commit an act of violence, as that carries a far more severe sentence than petty theft.


*huggles Demented Hamsters*

EXACTLY what I was trying to get across.

Having guns provokes others to have them, making it a status quo as you're still on the same level of armament vs the burglar, only now there may be people who are not used to using arms standing at a crossway between shooting and not, and that choice is for me better taken by some form of police force or SWAT-like agency.
They are professionals, le them use the weapons or you might just end up contribting to the danger having no tactical skill wht so ever. So, put down the guns, go to bed and just don't care. If you do, call the cops.

So hard to resist.

Must have control.

rofl

Dude your totally pushing our name into the ground why is it that Texas people are so oblivious.

And, hippies, if you really believe in the concept of reasonable force, then there is no reason why a woman should ever try to kill a rapist in self defense. After all, he's not going to kill her.


Actually, a large number of women murdered are raped prior to being murdered,
Plus, yes, she has a right to kill her rapist in self defense if she has no other way top get out of the situation, but quite frankly, if she does kill him she's probably in posession of an illegal blade or firearm anyway, for which she's likely to be proseuted.

Actually, a large number of women murdered are raped prior to being murdered,
Plus, yes, she has a right to kill her rapist in self defense if she has no other way top get out of the situation, but quite frankly, if she does kill him she's probably in posession of an illegal blade or firearm anyway, for which she's likely to be proseuted.

but does that mean she shouldn't be tried for murder?

Dave's law.

As the number of posts in any given thread approaches infinity, the probability of the last poster having read the preceding posts approaches zero.

Dave's law.

As the number of posts in any given thread approaches infinity, the probability of the last poster having read the preceding threads approaches zero.

thats a good law

thats a good law

Yah but as I see it now it needs an edit. :(

No, because there was no mens rea. because her main intention is more likely to be to defend herself, than to kill her rapist, unless she's a bit fucked in the head.
You don't think "i'm going to kill him" (which would be mens rea)
you think "shit, how the fuck do i get out of this situation?"

No, because there was no mens rea. because her main intention is more likely to be to defend herself, than to kill her rapist, unless she's a bit fucked in the head.
You don't think "i'm going to kill him" (which would be mens rea)
you think "shit, how the fuck do i get out of this situation?"

why "her" guys get raped too all be it a lot less but they still get raped and try prooving that? thats where the law is shite its generally seen as a guy crime

why "her" guys get raped too all be it a lot less but they still get raped and try prooving that? thats where the law is shite its generally seen as a guy crime
because it was a woman who was originally referred to in a hypothetical situation presented to me.
yeah, guys get raped, and apparrently women can rape men
Men tend to rape more than women because it's a dominant thing attatched to the male psyche. Often in wars men get raped by other men, not for pleasure, just because it's the dominant thing to do. The bvast majority of women don't have the same dominant tendencies. Rape is an extreme of this, i know, but that's sposed to be why a lot of it happens.

No, because there was no mens rea. because her main intention is more likely to be to defend herself, than to kill her rapist, unless she's a bit fucked in the head.
You don't think "i'm going to kill him" (which would be mens rea)
you think "shit, how the fuck do i get out of this situation?"

mens rea = intent.

mens rea != motive.

So yes, there is quite possibly "mens rea".

Dave's law.

As the number of posts in any given thread approaches infinity, the probability of the last poster having read the preceding posts approaches zero.

Just thought I'd quote this and see if anyone actually reads it.

Just thought I'd quote this and see if anyone actually reads it.

Not a hope in hell, trust me.

And, hippies, if you really believe in the concept of reasonable force, then there is no reason why a woman should ever try to kill a rapist in self defense. After all, he's not going to kill her.
and how the hell does she know this as he's forcing himself on her?

this isn't rape we're talking about, it's missing a few posessions which insurance will reimburse you for. rape is an entirely different matter and i find it disgusting of you to compare the two.

mens rea = intent.

mens rea != motive.

So yes, there is quite possibly "mens rea".

no, mens rea is guilty intent to commit a crime.

Unless she's a bit funny in the head she'd be more worried about DEFENDING HERSELF than KILLING HER ATTACKER.
she has in intent to protect herself, NOT to kill the person attacking her. If he ggets killed when she's defending herself, he get's killed.
I guess she might be able to be prosecuted for manslaughter, i'm not sure. But DEFINITELY not murder.

I pity the foo that breaks into my house, especialy now that the assualt weapons ban is gone.

Not a hope in hell, trust me.

I think we're hitting some kind of blind spot. I think we have to fill the whole screen and then they might actually notice.

True... but would you think it fair someone getting killed over a TV?

Life is more precious than possesion

That's really the burglar's choice to make.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4038241.stm

In the UK, if someone breaks into your house, you can't do anything about it... if you do, the burglar can file charges on you. If someone breaks into my American home, I can shoot them.. and here in Texas, I can follow them outside and shoot them. This is what I'm thankful for this year... I'm thankful my country protects the rights of property owners more than the rights of criminals.

You're thankful because you can kill your fellow Texans? You'd be upset to live someplace where your 'right' to kill your fellow citizens is denied you?

What kind of meds do they put in the water down in Texas, anyway? How do your property rights outweigh a man's right to his life?

Dave's law.

As the number of posts in any given thread approaches infinity, the probability of the last poster having read the preceding posts approaches zero.

Does anyone else get the feeling that we're stuck in some kind of temporal loop?

Does anyone else get the feeling that we're stuck in some kind of temporal loop?
I'm not reading over 400 posts for anyone

Does anyone else get the feeling that we're stuck in some kind of temporal loop?

No.

Wait, I know you, you weren't here a minute ago, but I know you. How is that?

Something is going on.

I'm not reading over 400 posts for anyone

It's alright, you only have to go back about three pages.

I'm not reading over 400 posts for anyone

You could just dip into the last few pages though. It *might* help.

No.

Wait, I know you, you weren't here a minute ago, but I know you. How is that?

Something is going on.

Hey, aren't you the police? Or something like that. I distinctly remember you saying something about being the law.

You could just dip into the last few pages though. It *might* help.
just dipped into the last 3 pages.
Wow.
That was worth my time
:rolleyes:

Hey, aren't you the police? Or something like that. I distinctly remember you saying something about being the law.


The law?

That's right, I remember now, there was some type of law. It had to do with where we are now.

But what was it? :confused:

The law?

That's right, I remember now, there was some type of law. It had to do with where we are now.

But what was it? :confused:
are you capable of sticking oto the topic or not????

yes. Well done. Your law was very clever. Do yiou have anything of value to add to the thresd?

are you capable of sticking oto the topic or not????

More capable than you apparently.

jesus im getting so tired of this shit.."uk is better than us rofl omg"'shit like that. seriously, this shit is retarded. both countries are good. and it really does piss me off when everyone bashes the US--ok yeah, i know, we arent perfect, and i will never say we are. but come on, people, we're doing the best we can. just because we have a fuhrer in office does not mean that we are all ignorant. if all you can say is "country x sucks" then get the fuck over yourself

are you capable of sticking oto the topic or not????

Not any more, I was here for the whole thing. Spectacular ending. Post #377 on page 26.

Not any more, I was here for the whole thing. Spectacular ending. Post #377 on page 26.


Ouch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4038241.stm

In the UK, if someone breaks into your house, you can't do anything about it... if you do, the burglar can file charges on you. If someone breaks into my American home, I can shoot them.. and here in Texas, I can follow them outside and shoot them. This is what I'm thankful for this year... I'm thankful my country protects the rights of property owners more than the rights of criminals.

As a Brit, I agree with you 100% man. Our government is a pile of **** and won't let you do anything. I hope the Government can come to it's senses and allow us law abiding citizens to kick the **** out of intruders and kill them if neccessary...

I think I have the solution: See, all of you criminal loving liberal-guilt addicts should put up signs that say, "I Respect the Rights of Criminals to Safely Invade My House," that way the thieves will skip robbing my house (where it isn't safe to break-in) and go to yours. This is really the best thing you could do to insure their safetly, and it will further eliminate the risk associated with stealing things from people's homes. Plus, this way I don't have to kill some dipshit because he'll be over at your place enjoying tea and cookies. Everybody wins!
That would work.

Some people in this thread dont seem to understand the difference between self defense and defense of property.

You shallow vapid materialists *are not* your TVs and stereos or whatever you're so worried about being stolen.

I challange you to find a single case in which a person acted in self defense and wounded their attacker and was charged.

By self defense I mean defense of their own life, not defense of their radio or whatever.

I seem to remember (if this is the instance I remember) that the burglar was, in fact, shot while running away from the house, outside, empty-handed, in the back, with a shotgun.
To all you blood-thirsty, psychopathic gun-nuts in this thread, I'd like to say that I gasped in true awe at your obviously astonishing masculinity at wanting to blow the head off everything. I'm sure you feel all the more secure for coming on the forum to show everyone, and so I duly bow down before you in humble reverence.

Some people in this thread dont seem to understand the difference between self defense and defense of property.

You shallow vapid materialists *are not* your TVs and stereos or whatever you're so worried about being stolen.

I challange you to find a single case in which a person acted in self defense and wounded their attacker and was charged.

By self defense I mean defense of their own life, not defense of their radio or whatever.

Good point...but where does self-defence become legitimate...what if it was to defend your pet? Is that materialist?
Or a family heirloom that has little monetary value but significant personal value...is that materialist?

Personally, I believe that anyone who is in the process of breaking the law (eg. breaking into a property) is acting in a sub-human fashion, and as such immediately relinquishes all civil and legal rights...that would stop some of the criminals

(This does not mean that I support people placing claymores in their hall before going to bed...but it would be funny)

Personally, I believe that anyone who is in the process of breaking the law (eg. breaking into a property) is acting in a sub-human fashion, and as such immediately relinquishes all civil and legal rights...that would stop some of the criminals

Interesting...does that extend to corporations who break the law, too? What about nations that break international law?

That might shake things up a bit in the world.

Good point...but where does self-defence become legitimate...what if it was to defend your pet? Is that materialist?
Or a family heirloom that has little monetary value but significant personal value...is that materialist?

Personally, I believe that anyone who is in the process of breaking the law (eg. breaking into a property) is acting in a sub-human fashion, and as such immediately relinquishes all civil and legal rights...that would stop some of the criminals

(This does not mean that I support people placing claymores in their hall before going to bed...but it would be funny)



Personally, if somone broke into my house I would point my gun at them and yell and whatnot, but certainly not shoot them (and holes in my house, and maybe my family, or pet, or through the wall and hit a neighbor etc etc) unless they were very explicitly threatening the life of me or a family member.

Shooting somone in the back under any circumstances is a crime, because anyone gutless enough to shoot somone in the back deserves to rot in a prison cell.

I seem to remember (if this is the instance I remember) that the burglar was, in fact, shot while running away from the house, outside, empty-handed, in the back, with a shotgun.If its Tony Martin you are thinking of it was even funnier, Mr Martin had actually been waiting behind his front door with a shotgun. There were actually 3 burglars only one got shot. The burglars had 43 convictions for theft between them.
To all you blood-thirsty, psychopathic gun-nuts in this thread, I'd like to say that I gasped in true awe at your obviously astonishing masculinity at wanting to blow the head off everything. I'm sure you feel all the more secure for coming on the forum to show everyone, and so I duly bow down in reverance at your overwhelming superiority. Yeah your right thinking that criminals should get fucked up for being criminals is a sign of blood thirst and psychopathy,we should just let people steal whatever they want, hell why even bother locking our doors?

Don't get me wrong - I do not sympathise with the criminals, and I have some sympathy with the view that they really shouldn't be there, and so deserve punishment. But ever thought that if you made guns illegal they would be less likely to carry them? They hardly ever do in the UK. Oh and, the system DOES allow you to kill only if there is a very real and deadly threat. So, if someone was raping your wife - go ahead. Shoot the SOB. But if they're stealing your radio, hit them with a frying pan or something.

Don't get me wrong - I do not sympathise with the criminals, and I have some sympathy with the view that they really shouldn't be there, and so deserve punishment. But ever thought that if you made guns illegal they would be less likely to carry them? They hardly ever do in the UK. Oh and, the system DOES allow you to kill only if there is a very real and deadly threat. So, if someone was raping your wife - go ahead. Shoot the SOB. But if they're stealing your radio, hit them with a frying pan or something.
If they are stealing my frying pan can I hit them with a radio?

Yes, because their lazy fecklessness stops them form owning an M3 BMW, we should let them break into our houses.

im not saying what they do is right, just that their 'lazy fecklessness' means they have to.

I have long suspected that for many of the basest americans their secret dream in life is to shoot an intruder to death.

More evidence, in my opinion, that america has become overtaken by barbarism.

Brittanic States:
As funny as that is, it's a pretty spurious interpretation of my post.

If they are stealing my frying pan can I hit them with a radio? as long as you do not kill them, or you'll be up for mild manslaughter (probably. I am not a lawyer yet…!) But no shooting. Get guns out of the USA, and criminals will only have knives, mostly.

as long as you do not kill them, or you'll be up for mild manslaughter (probably. I am not a lawyer yet…!) But no shooting. Get guns out of the USA, and criminals will only have knives, mostly.
If the burglar is stealing my gun can I club him to death with my stuffed squirrel?

You see..in the moment..at 2am when someones in your house and they shouldnt be you arent thinking about "Oh they're only here for the TV." No what would be going through my mind is "I've got to make sure my family is safe at whatever the cost."

I'd make sure to put the guy down with a round. I wouldnt shoot him in the leg or the arm and I'd make sure to hit him/her right in the chest. Because what if the guy isnt there just for a TV? You dont know that and thats what makes the situation understandable for any use of force up to and including the use of a firearm. Now I'm not advocating taking an assault rifle to this guy, but when I'm a cop I know my weapon is going to be home with me.

Riight -- that's why Worldcom and Enron CEO's stole billions of dollars from average middle class people like me, because I created a system that put them below the poverty line. There are no greedy psychopaths out there, all criminals are criminals because of me. I also created their crack addictions and gave them all STDs. By your logic, people who don't feel attractive because they don't fit the media's standard of beauty should be allowed to rape attractive people. Fuck that, here in America people take responsablity for their own actions.

where did i say they should be allowed to do what they do? i was just giving the reason behind it. and i wasnt talking about rapists or corporate thiefs, i was talking about people who steal to survive. i thought that was quite obvious, as that was what the original post referred to.

oh and is taking responsibility for your own actions like the US (and my) government invading iraq to get nasty saddam 'whom weve never had anything to do with or given any weapons to, no way' hussein?

you cant fight fire with fire.

The thing is, we are safer from violent crime in the UK without our guns. So, it's better to be a Brit!

Isn't it better to live in the UK without so much violent crime, rather than have MORE of a risk of encountering someone with a gun in the US? You may well get aerated.

as long as you do not kill them, or you'll be up for mild manslaughter (probably. I am not a lawyer yet…!) But no shooting. Get guns out of the USA, and criminals will only have knives, mostly.

Never will be either, throwing that kind of stuff up.

It's called comity. :rolleyes:

as long as you do not kill them, or you'll be up for mild manslaughter (probably. I am not a lawyer yet…!) But no shooting. Get guns out of the USA, and criminals will only have knives, mostly.
What you'll have is law-abiding citizens with no guns, and criminals with guns.
By the way, do I have to wait for the criminal to start raping my wife before I act in self-defense? How do I know a criminal is only going to rob me, and not commit violence on my or my family's person? If the criminal is committing a criminal act in someone's home, it is ridiculous to hold the property owner responsible for the criminal's life.

No one deserves to get burgled either dude, if they dont wanna get shot then maybe they shouldnt break into peoples houses.
They do.Some greedy stupid bastards deserve to get burgled.

They do.Some greedy stupid bastards deserve to get burgled.
For example?

For example?

Joe my next door neighbour who is a proper scrooge.

Joe my next door neighbour who is a proper scrooge.
You should post his address maybe a burglar is reading this thread right now.

Anyway if a person comes into your house to rob,rape or kill,don't panic.Its your house and you know it better than him.You are the boss and you call the shots.You just have to take him out not kill him(or her of course).Its only property and its not worth killing someone over anyway.Of course if they came to rape or something then I might kill but only with a knife some sticky tape and my bare hands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4038241.stm

In the UK, if someone breaks into your house, you can't do anything about it... if you do, the burglar can file charges on you. If someone breaks into my American home, I can shoot them.. and here in Texas, I can follow them outside and shoot them. This is what I'm thankful for this year... I'm thankful my country protects the rights of property owners more than the rights of criminals.

Eh? You think that's a good reason to be American? I don't know what guns most Americans have, because I haven't read the rest of this thread yet. But why would you shoot someone who broke into your property? Sure, if they tried to shoot you... shoot them back. Self defense. Basic common sense But what is this?

I guess it's a cultural difference, but I wouldn't want to live in America for that reason. Ask them to leave? Restrain them? Beat the crap out of them? And sure, they can sue you, but then, how many of them do you think would press charges on them if they've broken the law too?

I can see why you would want to shoot them if they were getting away and were already out of the house... long range distance and all. But if they've stolen something big, and you shoot them and they fall... chances are, they'll break it when they go down. Seems a little silly. I mean, when I saw this link, I thought I was going to see something a little more... obvious? Than this.

You should post his address maybe a burglar is reading this thread right now.
I am.I often knick his things.I also regularly shoplift.Nothing too major but if the store does not sell at a fair price I'm stealing.

I am.I often knick his things.I also regularly shoplift.Nothing too major but if the store does not sell at a fair price I'm stealing.
So if Joe shot you for stealing from him would you take it personally?

So if Joe shot you for stealing from him would you take it personally?

Before Joe could pull the trigger I'd have a knife down his gullet.When faced with a serious threat criminals can kill the proprietor too.It works both ways.If Joe wants to shoot me he better be ready to die first.

Before Joe could pull the trigger I'd have a knife down his gullet.When faced with a serious threat criminals can kill the proprietor too.It works both ways.If Joe wants to shoot me he better be ready to die first.
Yeah but you would understand why people would want guns to protect themselves from burglars, since you carry a knife when you steal from your neighbours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4038241.stm

In the UK, if someone breaks into your house, you can't do anything about it... if you do, the burglar can file charges on you. If someone breaks into my American home, I can shoot them.. and here in Texas, I can follow them outside and shoot them. This is what I'm thankful for this year... I'm thankful my country protects the rights of property owners more than the rights of criminals.

Yes, that is a way in which America is definitely better than Britain.

Yes, that is a way in which America is definitely better than Britain.
America also has better pizza and burgers dont taste like shit.

I am.I often knick his things.I also regularly shoplift.Nothing too major but if the store does not sell at a fair price I'm stealing.
A model citizen, I see. Stealing is OK if you think the prices are too high, huh? Talk about your moral relativism...

Yeah but you would understand why people would want guns to protect themselves from burglars, since you carry a knife when you steal from your neighbours.

But I would not need the knife if there was no threat.I steal for economic purposes and do not wish to harm anyone.Trickle down economics my hole and all that malarky.The risks multiply for both participants,i.e the criminal and the proprietor when weapons are involved.Now will someone inform me how many people get shot in America,is there evidence to show that the householder is always top dog in the shoot outs?

America also has better pizza and burgers dont taste like shit.

I expect you can find good pizzas and burgers in both nations if you look in the right places.

A model citizen, I see. Stealing is OK if you think the prices are too high, huh? Talk about your moral relativism...

The inequalities in this world are such that theft is often the only way to survive.

Okay, this isn't imagination land where we're all psychic and know what's going on in Mr-I'm-Breaking-Into-Your-House's Mind. We're talking about 'it's the middle of the night, and a full grown man in a ski-mask has just broken your window and is lurking around your house.' How do you know that all he wants is you TV? How do you know he isn't some drugged-up serial rapist with Aids and a gun?

We're not talking about hiring a private detective to track down some kid that stole your TV so you can disconnect the breaks to his car two weeks afterwards. (although that would be sweet) This is about the heat of the momment, when you don't know what the fuck's going on.


and there is the proplem. Perhaps in the US you assume that it is a serial rapist with aids and a gun. In most other countries that is not the likely assumption people jump to.


The fact that you are so proud of your inherent right to kill is rather sad. It almost sounds like you WANT the opportunity to kill. Hey - if you're extra lucky maybe the kids will get to see a blood-spattered body in the living room so you can impress the hell out of them too! It shouldn;t cause any psychological damage... right?


Or then again... maybe that WAS your kid sneaking in after being out late.


But if you think that court cases involving reasonable response to a suspected threat don't happen in the US too - then you are deluding yourself.

Criminals are humans too, no one deserves to get shot
See, this is where we disagree, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with shooting a serial rapist, or depending on the circumstances, a normal rapist. Same thing goes for various murderers and columbian drug lords. For that matter, getting shot in the ass is a wonderful deterrent against thieves.

But I would not need the knife if there was no threat.I steal for economic purposes and do not wish to harm anyone.
What "economic purposes" ? Get a job. Oh and I think you will find you wouldnt need the knife if you werent stealing.
What do you think should be the punishment for burglars? We never hear the criminals perspective enough.

See, this is where we disagree, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with shooting a serial rapist, or depending on the circumstances, a normal rapist. Same thing goes for various murderers and columbian drug lords. For that matter, getting shot in the ass is a wonderful deterrent against thieves.

Not if the thief has children who need to be fed.He'll keep coming and next time with bullet-proof jocks.

What "economic purposes" ? Get a job. Oh and I think you will find you wouldnt need the knife if you werent stealing.
What do you think should be the punishment for burglars? We never hear the criminals perspective enough.

I have a job but I need to pay for my cable T.V.

Not if the thief has children who need to be fed.He'll keep coming and next time with bullet-proof jocks.
If by "children who need to be fed" you mean "self inflicted drug addiction" I see what you mean :D

I don't give a shit what the punishment is.I would not be doing it if I thought I would get caught.

I have a job but I need to pay for my cable T.V.
Couldnt you steal cable tv instead?

I don't give a shit what the punishment is.I would not be doing it if I thought I would get caught.
Then why carry the knife if you dont think you are going to get caught?

If someone has already broken into my house, why should I assume that they're not going to attack me, my wife, my children or even my girl friend!
Dude, you have both a wife and a girlfriend?

Not a hope in hell, trust me.

There is one "rea" of hope.

Not any more, I was here for the whole thing. Spectacular ending. Post #377 on page 26.

OH FOR GOD'S SAKE!! CAN SOMEONE PLEASE KILL THIS THREAD!! MOST OF THE DEBATE WAS A JOKE!! A BLOODY JOKE!!! JUST LOOK AT PAGE 26, FOR PITY'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, you have both a wife and a girlfriend?
God bless America!