NationStates Jolt Archive

They want your TV, they don't want your life.

You have no way of knowing that. Just last month there were two home invasions in Tulsa. In the second incident they killed the man who was in the house. If they are in your house, you have every reason to fear for your life and use deadly force.

You mean like this story?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml?source=mostpop_story

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/family.killed/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19957752/

That story and this story http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080422_11_Polic67651
both are good reasons for people to visit their local "Guns R Us." Sure blows the hell out of the "but they just wanted your TV" argument.

Alright, that settles it. If I have a gun, and you break into my house, you're FUCKING DEAD. I don't care if I do go to jail, my family aren't going to be raped and killed.

Alright, that settles it. If I have a gun, and you break into my house, you're FUCKING DEAD. I don't care if I do go to jail, my family aren't going to be raped and killed.

What happens if someone breaks in while you're in jail?

Because there's no difference between a big city and a small town, so they're completely comparable. Yes indeedy.
[/URL]
The point is that sprawl has made the difference between a small town and a big city indistinguishable, save for a city limit sign on SR 41...

And we could probably do the battle of the stats all day long on the UK and never reach a conclusion. But if they are happy with a ban, then let them have it. But I don't want to see it used to support a ban in the United States. The situations are just too different.

And we could probably do the battle of the stats all day long on the UK and never reach a conclusion. But if they are happy with a ban, then let them have it. But I don't want to see it used to support a ban in the United States. The situations are just too different.

This I agree with. The situation in America is unique, and European solutions can't be expected to work in the US and vice versa.

The English will never understand why Americans defend themselves,
because the English ( although nice people ) have been cut off for so long
from their right to defend themselves that have resigned to pay other people
to do it for them. Isn't England "the most watched city in the world" ?
Because everywhere you go there are cameras watching you?

Well on the other side of the pond, is the Since America was formed,
we have fought not less than four invasions, and One Civil war.
American's have always known that when they set out to colonize the west,
or build up a state that there was probably someone out there who was willing
and capable to take everything we had.
So American's have written it into our Nations most important documents
that WE CAN OWN GUNS!
And Can use them in our defense, and in our State's and Nation's Defense.

That's why we have guns, and that's why we use them.
It may seem silly to people who can't remember the last time their Nation
was attacked on all sides, Or torn apart by civil war.
But as a nation WE do,
talk to someone who escaped from Serbia in the 90's,
Or Liberia,

If you have a gun, you are safer,
If everyone in your Neighborhood owns a gun it gets around that
this is NOT the place to rob.
Alteast Half the houses in this part of town, A middle class Neighborhood
near an elementary School own guns.
there have been 1 incident of robery ( in a house that was a NON GUN house)
and 1 attempted Robery, which was ended with a shot gun.
there was One attempted grand theft auto which was ended with a 357mag
So in the last Ten years I'd say we did okay.

Guns and people trained to use them make the city you live in safer that's
all there is to it.

Because that's what you do when you're being chased out of a house with a gun, you get your own gun and go back :rolleyes:



He was being shot at!! The guy chased him out of the house and killed him, dropping to the ground and leaving yourself at his mercy probably isn't a great idea.



This one did give up his life and time trying to earn things, just not legally.



Imprisonment and being shot non-fatally are consequences too you know.

Can you show me the stats on failed robbery's which caused the perp to
come back with a gun?
I can tell you at least where I live, Robber meets gun,
ends in no more robbery!

Maybe you live in a fancy gated community where " bad people are kept away"

But out here where the working man lives, those who carry and own
guns are safer.
If you want to see how folks and fire arms really live you should
move to one of these towns for yourself, buy new shinny toys and
then tell everyone who will listen that you hate guns...
You're gear won't last a month.
Bad people are out there, and if you want to cry to the cops to save you
then you're always going to be a victim.

The Rest of us do not wish to allow these vermin to profit from our work,
If you rob me I will kill you,
I don't care why you think you need my money,
or what color your skin is / where you pray...
Thieves should be punished,
and if they get shot that's what they deserved.

This I agree with. The situation in America is unique, and European solutions can't be expected to work in the US and vice versa.
Never one to leave well enough alone, I think we ought to adopt that attitude over nationalized health care...

*sneaks off before the dam bursts*

Never one to leave well enough alone, I think we ought to adopt that attitude over nationalized health care...

*sneaks off before the dam bursts*

I agree

Never one to leave well enough alone, I think we ought to adopt that attitude over nationalized health care...

*sneaks off before the dam bursts*

Out of morbid curiosity. What about America makes you think that a national health care system wouldn't drag the quality of health care up to a standard comparable with, let's say, Cuba?

Out of morbid curiosity. What about America makes you think that a national health care system wouldn't drag the quality of health care up to a standard comparable with, let's say, Cuba?

it is just the normal American distrust of the goverment. we don't want the goverment to dictate our health care, how much we pay, and how much it will cost.

it is just the normal American distrust of the goverment. we don't want the goverment to dictate our health care, how much we pay, and how much it will cost.

So even if it's been shown repeatedly that this is one thing that can be run better and cheaper by a central authority you'd rather keep yuor head buried in the sand chanting about how the govt. is out to get you?

So even if it's been shown repeatedly that this is one thing that can be run better and cheaper by a central authority you'd rather keep yuor head buried in the sand chanting about how the govt. is out to get you?

1st off there is still room for debate on those studies.

2nd off regardless if the goverment is benevolent or not it is one more facet of my life that will be dictated to me by the majority, instead of by my own choice.

as for Cuba you do realize that the local pre-op anesthesia is acupuncture. I think I would rather pay for some pain pills in the US thank you.

If you really want a full on debate lets starts a new thread on this as I feel if we go any further we would be thread hijacking.

Okay. I understood your point to be that if the predator was shot at inside the house, it was fine. When he ran away, it was not okay to follow and kill him.

My conclusion was that it if you were going to kill a predator, you should do it inside, rather than outside -- hence the need for well-aimed shots.

Interestingly enough there are different laws in every state regarding guns. NJ and NY require very intense background checks, fingerprinting, registration, and firing pin identification analysis. All of this information is registered in a central location for retrieval by law enforcement and dealers. You'd have a hard time if you shot someone in the back even indoors, especially if they had no weapon. You could not shoot someone outside if they were not making a direct threat. You must say that you are armed and intend to kill before firing a shot. But dead men aren't telling stories these days about who said what and when. Fass, labeling us all the same because Texas has this law is not fair. Would all of Europe align themselves with one set of laws with no local variation to nation states? The United States is a very large place with a lot of different people. Our states are the size of many nations in the rest of the world.

With that said, if you break into my house I am only to assume you want to do me harm, and I will train my gun on your head. You get told to leave once and if you 1. don't move 2. reach for a weapon, consider the death certificate signed. You right to life, liberty, and the pursuit end when you try to infringe up[on my right to do the same.

Interestingly enough there are different laws in every state regarding guns. NJ and NY require very intense background checks, fingerprinting, registration, and firing pin identification analysis. All of this information is registered in a central location for retrieval by law enforcement and dealers. You'd have a hard time if you shot someone in the back even indoors, especially if they had no weapon. You could not shoot someone outside if they were not making a direct threat. You must say that you are armed and intend to kill before firing a shot. But dead men aren't telling stories these days about who said what and when. Fass, labeling us all the same because Texas has this law is not fair. Would all of Europe align themselves with one set of laws with no local variation to nation states? The United States is a very large place with a lot of different people. Our states are the size of many nations in the rest of the world.

With that said, if you break into my house I am only to assume you want to do me harm, and I will train my gun on your head. You get told to leave once and if you 1. don't move 2. reach for a weapon, consider the death certificate signed. You right to life, liberty, and the pursuit end when you try to infringe up[on my right to do the same.

Aiming for center mass would be better (the body), as it's a larger target than a human head (decreasing your chance of missing). Unless the intruder is this guy:

http://www.thumbtackpress.com/browse/images/bobdob0008.jpg

Or this guy:

http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/31984.jpg

Then aiming for the head would be aiming for the largest body part.

I find it hard to justify shooting someone who is fleeing your property and making no attempt to harm you.

In Italy, it is called "voluntary homicide" and earns something in between 10 and 25 years in jail.

Most burglars do.

That's why a house with concrete walls and a steel door keeps off burglars more effectively than a gun does.

Anyway, to my european self, this simply means that I don't feel the urge to visit Texas, just like I don't feel the urge to visit Sudan, Zimbabwe or Congo.

I am clear on the order of events. The point I was trying to make, and that you apparently missed, is that Scarborough was no longer a threat after he had been discovered.

I've not missed your point, it's just that it's ludicrous. At what point is he not a threat? Yes, running away means that he's not an immediate at-this-moment threat the way he would be if he was holding a gun to your head, but he definitely still a threat. He burgalrized that house twice already, what makes you think he's not going to come back a third time? And now that he knows that the homeowner is armed, what makes you think he won't bring some sort of weapon himself?


1. Do you think the homeowner should be prosecuted for what they did?

No, he acted within the law.

2. Do you think the homeowner acted ethically?

Yes. Defense of yourself and others.

I've not missed your point, it's just that it's ludicrous. At what point is he not a threat? Yes, running away means that he's not an immediate at-this-moment threat the way he would be if he was holding a gun to your head, but he definitely still a threat. He burgalrized that house twice already, what makes you think he's not going to come back a third time? And now that he knows that the homeowner is armed, what makes you think he won't bring some sort of weapon himself?

Exactly. Scarborough was no longer an imminent threat when he was running away.

But as to whether or not he is still a threat when he is running away, you seem to think he is a definite threat. But you have no evidence to suggest that Scarborough was a threat to the safety of Thames, or would have been in the future. All you have is your opinion.

[QUOTE=Hotwife;13659412]Death! No trial, either. No taxpayer dollars wasted on a useless public defender, incarceration, or vain attempts at rehabilitation.

the death sentence cost even more tax dollars then all these things so maybe its better you gave them live sentence (yes thats cheaper then death sentence 2)

Exactly. Scarborough was no longer an imminent threat when he was running away.

But as to whether or not he is still a threat when he is running away, you seem to think he is a definite threat. But you have no evidence to suggest that Scarborough was a threat to the safety of Thames, or would have been in the future. All you have is your opinion.

You may note that Texas does not have the ludicrous standards of "threat" that the UK has.

You're comparing apples and oranges. If the guy is still on your property, and the property is yours, you can kill him.

You may note that Texas does not have the ludicrous standards of "threat" that the UK has.

You're comparing apples and oranges. If the guy is still on your property, and the property is yours, you can kill him.

Please be a bit more precise as to how your post has anything to do with what I wrote.

Please be a bit more precise as to how your post has anything to do with what I wrote.

You're trying to establish or not establish that the target was a "threat", immediate or otherwise.

Claiming that my post has nothing to do with what you're saying is a poor substitute for argument.

But as to whether or not he is still a threat when he is running away, you seem to think he is a definite threat.

Aaaaaand it finally sinks in. Only took a couple of days, too.

But you have no evidence to suggest that Scarborough was a threat to the safety of Thames, or would have been in the future.

He broke into the man's house in the middle of the night! TWICE! If that's not a threat to his safety, I don't know what is. How are you not getting this? As for future behavior, if the same man breaks into my house twice, I don't really think it's a far-out, left field guess for thinking that he'll do it again, given the chance.

All you have is your opinion.

That and a firearm is all I need, once you've broken into my house.

Idiots with guns killing idiots without them.

You're trying to establish or not establish that the target was a "threat", immediate or otherwise.

Claiming that my post has nothing to do with what you're saying is a poor substitute for argument.

Actually, I thought it was pretty clear that Scarborough could have been rationally considered an imminent threat when he was in the house, and outside the house, he could not have been. I'm still waiting for anyone to prove that Scarborough was any sort of threat whatsoever when he was outside running away.

How threat is defined in the UK versus Texas may be related to my post on some legal level, but I haven't been discussing the legality of it at all. So I still don't see what your point is.

Aaaaaand it finally sinks in. Only took a couple of days, too.

If it makes you feel smarter to act like this, go ahead.

He broke into the man's house in the middle of the night! TWICE!

No. He broke into the house once, and matched the decription of someone who had previously broken in. It is impossible to know if they were the same person.

If that's not a threat to his safety, I don't know what is.

Yes, you keep repeating that he was a threat, yet you still haven't explained how Scarborough was a threat. I guess I'm supposed to write that part of the argument for you?

At the most, one could argue that if Scarborough had been the man who had broken into Thames' house before, then Scarborough still presented a threat to Thames' possessions. Please note that there is no indication that Scarborough ever attempted to attack Thames himself. In other words, he never directly threatened Thames' safety.

I still have some questions for pro-gun people:


1: Why do you want to allow the general public form your state/country to defend themselfs with lethal weapons? Or differently asked, what problem do you want to solve with pro-gun laws?

2: Why do you think it would work, or what do you think the (long-term) result of such a law would be, and what proves that thought.

3: How do you prevent crossing over the (thin?) line from self-defence to personal judgement, because with lethal weapons that can be life threatening to anyone (with lethal wweapons, we don't just talk about self-defence anymore, we talk about life and death). This question could be rephrased, or linked to the question "Do you think the general public from your state/country is ready to defend themselfs with letal weapons?".

I still have some questions for pro-gun people:


1: Why do you want to allow the general public form your state/country to defend themselfs with lethal weapons? Or differently asked, what problem do you want to solve with pro-gun laws?

2: Why do you think it would work, or what do you think the (long-term) result of such a law would be, and what proves that thought.

3: How do you prevent crossing over the (thin?) line from self-defence to personal judgement, because with lethal weapons that can be life threatening to anyone (with lethal wweapons, we don't just talk about self-defence anymore, we talk about life and death). This question could be rephrased, or linked to the question "Do you think the general public from your state/country is ready to defend themselfs with letal weapons?".

The general public already has guns. Pro-gun people want to keep it that way.

The general public already has guns.

No they do not. More than half of the population does not and has not owned a gun.

You may note that Texas does not have the ludicrous standards of "threat" that the UK has.

Wut?

Proof plz kthnxbye

Exactly. Scarborough was no longer an imminent threat when he was running away.

But as to whether or not he is still a threat when he is running away, you seem to think he is a definite threat. But you have no evidence to suggest that Scarborough was a threat to the safety of Thames, or would have been in the future. All you have is your opinion.

If he has broken into your property the law in Texas allows shooting of a person under perceived or possible threat. the need for immediate threat in the case of someone breaking into your house or car is not needed.
These requires the intruder to cross a barrier such as doors windows or a fence over 6 feet tall(about 1.98 M i think).

The general public already has guns. Pro-gun people want to keep it that way.
I was talking about the laws concerning them ;) Anyway, the questions are still open.

If he has broken into your property the law in Texas allows shooting of a person under perceived or possible threat. the need for immediate threat in the case of someone breaking into your house or car is not needed.
These requires the intruder to cross a barrier such as doors windows or a fence over 6 feet tall(about 1.98 M i think).

How threat is defined in the UK versus Texas may be related to my post on some legal level, but I haven't been discussing the legality of it at all. So I still don't see what your point is.

Recycling my posts because people can't be bothered to read...

No. He broke into the house once, and matched the decription of someone who had previously broken in. It is impossible to know if they were the same person.

I wish people would give the homeowner defending his property the same level of benefit-of-the-doubt that the poor misguided criminal gets as a matter of course.

Yes, you keep repeating that he was a threat, yet you still haven't explained how Scarborough was a threat. I guess I'm supposed to write that part of the argument for you?


You don't need to write my arguments for me. You seem to be having trouble enough writing your side. I don't merely keep repeating that he was a threat, I also keep repeating why: he had broken into the mans house in the middle of the night at least once, likely twice. Hopefully it sinks in this time


Please note that there is no indication that Scarborough ever attempted to attack Thames himself. In other words, he never directly threatened Thames' safety.

This is foolishly naive at best.

At the most, one could argue that if Scarborough had been the man who had broken into Thames' house before, then Scarborough still presented a threat to Thames' possessions. Please note that there is no indication that Scarborough ever attempted to attack Thames himself. In other words, he never directly threatened Thames' safety.

If your going to get angry about me recycling your post then perhaps you'd like to learn from them. you have stated there is a different legal definition of threat required to use lethal force in the UK versus the US. however you keep babbling on that he did not pose a threat.
Under Texas laws he his a presumed threat because the home owner could not know if he was armed or not, and could not know if the withdrawal by the intruder was truly to escape or a plan to simply get around the corner and draw said weapon.

that is the Law reflects our cultural values.
We believe that it is better for 100 unarmed thieves to be shot and killed then it would be for that one armed thief to turn around and kill the law abiding home owner, when the home owner previously had the advantage in said engagement.

I wish people would give the homeowner defending his property the same level of benefit-of-the-doubt that the poor misguided criminal gets as a matter of course.

That's nice that you wish that.

You don't need to write my arguments for me. You seem to be having trouble enough writing your side. I don't merely keep repeating that he was a threat, I also keep repeating why: he had broken into the mans house in the middle of the night at least once, likely twice. Hopefully it sinks in this time

All that proves is that Scarborough was a threat to Thames' continued ownership of his possessions. You have yet to show me any evidence that Thames health and safety were threatened.

This is foolishly naive at best.

What? I simply decribed a fact: we have no indication that Scarborough ever threatened Thames directly.

you have stated there is a different legal definition of threat required to use lethal force in the UK versus the US.

No, I didn't.

however you keep babbling on that he did not pose a threat.

I have stated that Scarborough did not pose an imminent threat to Thames when he was fleeing Thames' property. No one has proved otherwise.

Under Texas laws he his a presumed threat because the home owner could not know if he was armed or not, and could not know if the withdrawal by the intruder was truly to escape or a plan to simply get around the corner and draw said weapon.

that is the Law reflects our cultural values.
We believe that it is better for 100 unarmed thieves to be shot and killed then it would be for that one armed thief to turn around and kill the law abiding home owner, when the home owner previously had the advantage in said engagement.

And I think that this particular Texan law verges on paranoia. I say this because it allows people to act as if they were under imminent threat of bodily harm or death even when it obvious that this is not the case.

You don't need to write my arguments for me. You seem to be having trouble enough writing your side.

Not really. I see his arguments - and I agree with them.

I do think that's excessive, death for burglary? Comeon... I'd even excuse a few murder cases based on the circumstances.


Don't people realize a gun doesn't have to nesscarily shoot to kill? When I aim my gun I aim for a spot like the leg, something to bring a foe down, incapacitate them, but not kill them.


Also if it's a burglar I want to tell while I shoot them "SWIPER NO SWIPING! SWIPER NO SWIPING!"

I do think that's excessive, death for burglary? Comeon... I'd even excuse a few murder cases based on the circumstances.


Don't people realize a gun doesn't have to nesscarily shoot to kill? When I aim my gun I aim for a spot like the leg, something to bring a foe down, incapacitate them, but not kill them.


Also if it's a burglar I want to tell while I shoot them "SWIPER NO SWIPING! SWIPER NO SWIPING!"

I've already stated my opinion on shooting to wound (or, shooting to miss, as I prefer to call it). If I feel the need to shoot someone, I'm taking no chances, and will shoot to kill (because if I'm in a position that I feel I need to shoot someone, then I feel that the life of a family member/friend/myself is in mortal danger).

Oh, and the Dora the Explorer quote really doesn't help your argument.

There is nothing to "think" about it, I can just be viscerally disgusted. He shot a person posing no physical threat to him, in fact according to the video he chased him outside and shot him in the back as he was fleeing. There is no way to justify that. It is not self-defence, it is murder. And he's getting away with it because of a demented law that puts property above human life, which is actually unsurprising seeing the "values" of said country... but unsurprising doesn't mean it's any less repulsive.

I don't often agree to the full extent with you on things but I agree in this case

No they do not. More than half of the population does not and has not owned a gun.

That's debatable and completely unprovable. It really doesn't matter though, at the last attempted count (if you can believe polls, but for sake of argument), it was shown about 25% - 30% of US households counted actually admitted or where actually known to own firearms. Numbers show approximately 200 million to 220 million traceable firearms are known to exist in US private ownership. The only thing those polls show is that 70 million to 84 million households are known to own, or admit to owning, a traceable firearm. More interesting and definitely more frustrating to gun control and gun counting advocates, is the number of households which refuse to be counted or deny their firearm ownership so as to not be counted. Likewise is the interesting (albeit less so) question of untraceable firearms, where the only method of sample is when they are identified and seized because the owner was involved in a police case.

That's debatable and completely unprovable. It really doesn't matter though, at the last attempted count (if you can believe polls, but for sake of argument), it was shown about 25% - 30% of US households counted actually admitted or where actually known to own firearms. Numbers show approximately 200 million to 220 million traceable firearms are known to exist in US private ownership. The only thing those polls show is that 70 million to 84 million households are known to own, or admit to owning, a traceable firearm. More interesting and definitely more frustrating to gun control and gun counting advocates, is the number of households which refuse to be counted or deny their firearm ownership so as to not be counted. Likewise is the interesting (albeit less so) question of untraceable firearms, where the only method of sample is when they are identified and seized because the owner was involved in a police case.

But most of those factors can be quantified by finding variation in all kinds of cases between reporting and actual ownership and factored in with a bit larger margin of error then strait polling ... probably push the total study margin of error as high as 7 percent depending on sample size and bias

Don't people realize a gun doesn't have to nesscarily shoot to kill? When I aim my gun I aim for a spot like the leg, something to bring a foe down, incapacitate them, but not kill them.

Another damn internet wannabe... That's a bullshit strategy. It won't work, unless you are a champion marksman and even then I have my doubts. Legs move, heads move, hands move. And they move much faster than any of the moving targets you might have practiced on.

Think more like county fair -- the gallery is rigged and you NEVER can make the shot. That's what aiming for an appendage is like. Aim COM and you MIGHT be lucky enough to hit an appendage.

And get a damn spelling checker for your browser. There's no excuse for misspelling any word with a red line under it.

Another damn internet wannabe... That's a bullshit strategy. It won't work, unless you are a champion marksman and even then I have my doubts. Legs move, heads move, hands move. And they move much faster than any of the moving targets you might have practiced on.

Think more like county fair -- the gallery is rigged and you NEVER can make the shot. That's what aiming for an appendage is like. Aim COM and you MIGHT be lucky enough to hit an appendage.

And get a damn spelling checker for your browser. There's no excuse for misspelling any word with a red line under it.

I agree here ... One should never aim to wound ... you aim to remove the threat by hitting it in the largest body mass

If you don't want to kill it you should not be using a gun

That's nice that you wish that.

All that proves is that Scarborough was a threat to Thames' continued ownership of his possessions. You have yet to show me any evidence that Thames health and safety were threatened.

What? I simply decribed a fact: we have no indication that Scarborough ever threatened Thames directly.

and before he was found unarmed after he was dead the home owner had no proof that the criminal was not seeking cover in order to return fire.



No, I didn't.

post 267

I have stated that Scarborough did not pose an imminent threat to Thames when he was fleeing Thames' property. No one has proved otherwise.

it was unknown weather his intention was to flee to property or seek cover and pursue aggressions from there.
Tactically it is the right choice to make.

And I think that this particular Texan law verges on paranoia. I say this because it allows people to act as if they were under imminent threat of bodily harm or death even when it obvious that this is not the case.
and I find British law to be appalling pacifist, oh your the Yob robbing me would you like a spot of tea or should I just help my TV to your truck? And further more making law abiding citizens be in extreme circumstance before be able to defend themselves.

If you don't want to kill it you should not be using a gun
That's the number one rule. If you point a gun at someone, make sure it's with the intent to kill them.

That's the number one rule. If you point a gun at someone, make sure it's with the intent to kill them.

Well I would say if you point a gun at someone be ready to but not necessarily "intend" as there are situations (such as with law enforcement) the pointing (but non firing) of the gun itself is a deterrent

But yeah when they point the threat is to deter but they have to be prepared for on firing to kill not maim

Well I would say if you point a gun at someone be ready to but not necessarily "intend" as there are situations (such as with law enforcement) the pointing (but non firing) of the gun itself is a deterrent

But yeah when they point the threat is to deter but they have to be prepared for on firing to kill not maim
Okay, I thought "intend" suggested that, but maybe it's not strictly within the definition of the word.

I do believe that if a LEO points a gun at me, he intends to kill me if I don't comply with his instructions.

I still have some questions for pro-gun people:


1: Why do you want to allow the general public form your state/country to defend themselfs with lethal weapons? Or differently asked, what problem do you want to solve with pro-gun laws?


I think it is all about security. Security of self, family, neighbor, city, state, nation, and someday the world. Where the media shows murder for shoes or a couple dollars, children being abducted for sexual jollies or even just for the vehicle in which they are riding, rape, snipers on the freeway, nut-jobs slaughtering kids at school, cutting children from the mother's womb, random gang shootings, knifing attacks, bombings, anthrax, organ (the organic kind, like in your body) theft, adult abduction, police ignoring pleas for help, neighbors ignoring pleas for help, corruption, be-headings...there's a short list. These things occur because people rely on others to end them, unfortunately the top down hierarchy fails and only plays follow up to an event which has already occurred. Since the short list is accurate, the top down hierarchy cannot provide security to the individual or their family...so the only recourse is that the bottom up hierarchy must take precedence.


2: Why do you think it would work, or what do you think the (long-term) result of such a law would be, and what proves that thought.

When individuals protect themselves, the issue is dealt with at the time of it's occurance. Contrast that to a society which remains aloof and allows the police to handle the issue. First, the police cannot prevent (generally) the commission of a crime, unless by some chance of fate they happen to be at the scene when the crime is committed. More often than not, police can only follow up on a crime which has all ready occurred. In fact, in most US states, the police do not even have a duty to respond to a crime. This is minimizing, not prevention. Any society which accepts that a reduction of immoral acts is more desirable than the prevention of singular immoral acts...well that society operates under an immoral precedent, and thus again, the bottom up hierarchy must take precedence.

3: How do you prevent crossing over the (thin?) line from self-defence to personal judgement, because with lethal weapons that can be life threatening to anyone (with lethal wweapons, we don't just talk about self-defence anymore, we talk about life and death). This question could be rephrased, or linked to the question "Do you think the general public from your state/country is ready to defend themselfs with letal weapons?".

This is where self responsibility gets sticky, as there will always be a portion of people which will "go over the line", whether it is due to rage, unclear thinking, or seeing something in a situation which isn't there. This will occur regardless of a peoples stance on lethal weapons.

Please, do not get me wrong, I'm not advocating vigilantism in this post, nor am I advocating the dismantling of the police...they are, for the most part, excellent at their job. Just take responsibility for your own life and help your fellow human being when you are the one at the moment of a criminal event. It is the socially responsible thing to do.