Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on December 07, 2004, 08:34:24 AM
-
OK, OK – I’m sold. Get me a gun. A taser would do, as I don’t necessarily want to kill the intruders; - just inactivate them for a while. Can a dart taser fire at more than one potential assailant, or will I need the up close and personal type that resembles an electric shave for zapping more than one intruder?
I don’t agree that it’s because we’re “gunless” that we’ve arrived at the status quo. I blame a collapse of discipline in schools, inadequate policing, inadequate sentencing, inadequate number of prisons, more people becoming burglars because they see it’s easy with lenient sentencing or none at all, low risk of being brought to book, and the law is on the criminal’s side – the law protects the criminal from physical violence by the homeowner.
The whole law and order thing in Britain has gone tits up.
I’ve emboldened the bits that Lazs will like…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/07/do0702.xml
An Englishman's home is his dungeon
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 07/12/2004)
One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass. In America, unless one resides in a very small number of problematic inner-city quarters or wishes to make a career in the drug trade, one will live a life blessedly untouched by crime. In Britain, alas, it's the peculiar genius of Home Office policy to have turned the entire country into one big, rundown, inner-city, no-go slum estate, extending from prosperous suburbs to leafy villages, even unto Upper Cheyne Row.
The murderers of John Monckton understood the logic of this policy better than the lethargic overpaid British constabulary. An Englishman's home is not his castle, but his dungeon and ever more so - window bars, window locks, dead bolts, laser security, and no doubt biometricrecognition garage doors, once the Blunkett national ID card goes into circulation.
All this high-tech protection, urged on the householder by Pc Plod, may make your home more secure, but it makes you less so. From the burglar's point of view, the more advanced and impregnable the alarm systems become, the more it makes sense just to knock on the door and stab whoever answers.
Mr Monckton's killers thus made an entirely rational choice. He was a wealthy man, living in a prestigious neighbourhood of £3 million homes, and he presumably had the best security system to go with it. But time it right, get him to the front door, and the state-enforced impotence of the homeowner makes him as vulnerable as any old loser in a decrepit urine-sodden block on Broadwater Farm.
Various reassuring types, from police spokesmen to the Economist, described the stabbing of the Moncktons as a "burglary gone wrong". If only more burglaries could go right, they imply, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.
These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.
Her Majesty's Constabulary has metaphorically put a huge neon sign on every suburban cul-de-sac advertising open season on property owners. If you have a crime policy that makes "hot" burglaries routine, it's a reasonable bet that more and more citizens will wind up beaten, stabbed or dead.
I've been writing on this subject in The Telegraph for the best part of a decade now and, to be honest, I might as well recycle the 1996 or 1997 column and spend the week in the Virgin Islands.
My argument never changes. All that changes is the increasing familiarity of Britons with violent crime. Mr Monckton was a cousin by marriage of The Sunday Telegraph's Dominic Lawson, who is leading a campaign to allow citizens to defend themselves in their own homes.
That this most basic right should be something for which he has to organise a campaign is disgraceful. In New Hampshire, there are few burglaries because there's a high rate of gun ownership. Getting your head blown off for a $70 TV set isn't worth it. Conversely, thanks to the British police, burning the flesh of a London dressmaker to get her watch is definitely worth it. In Chelsea the morning after Mr Monckton's murder, Her Majesty's Keystone Konstabulary with all their state-of-the-art toys had sealed off the street in an almost comical illustration of their lavishly funded uselessness.
But let's look at it from their point of view. Suppose, instead of more of these robberies going wrong, they went right. The homeowner cowered in the bathroom, while the lads helped themselves to the DVD player and the wife's jewellery, and then the coppers came round and took a statement and advised you to get another half-dozen door chains and keep the jewellery in a vault at the bank.
Is it reasonable to live like that? After some crime column or other last year, I had a flurry of letters from American readers who'd been working in Britain and had been astonished at the rate of "garden theft" - that's to say, stuff the average American would never dream of lugging indoors back home, but which, during his sojourn across the pond, had been half-inched from the patio in the course of the night.
The British establishment's current complacent approach accepts that ever greater and ever more violent crime is a fact of life, rather than a historical aberration encouraged by the unprecedented constraints placed on the law-abiding and the boundless licence extended to the criminal class. That policy leads remorselessly to more deaths, and to lives lived under small but ever more insidious and corrupting restrictions.
The Tories' big mistake was their failure to understand that "freedom" isn't just about consumer choices or buying your council flat. It's also about being free to defend your home - after all, you're there on the scene and the West Midlands Police 24-Hour Crime Hotline answering machine isn't.
And an assertive citizenry, confident in its freedoms and its responsibilities, is a better bet for long-term survival than the passive charges of the nanny state. If the Government declines to pay any heed to The Sunday Telegraph campaign, and if the police persist in victimising the victims of crime, then I hope we'll see widespread jury rebellion and a refusal to convict.
The right to protect your family does not derive from any home secretary or chief constable.
-
I think that, at least in part, you arived at this stage by putting that guy who shot the burglars in jail for several years - and being so very very public and persistent in doing so...
-
A convert......I've seen it all!
-
in order..
I am not a big fan if "less leathal" weapons. They don't work well enough or they work too well. they tempt people to use em when they shouldn't and they don't work when they need to. They kill or maim when you only wanted to warn and they do nothing when you really needed to kill or maim.
The article.. yes... of course I liked it. It is the basic premis of most of mine when people try to take away my basic rights.
As to why bad people are doing bad things.. fun to specuilate but in the end... who cares? That is as worthless a road as "less leathal" weapons.... mental masterbation.... if you believe that you have the reasons for bad people doing bad things then if you change those things you get a false sense of security... Bad people have been around all my life no matter what the laws were... Human nature is such that they will continue to be around for the forseeable future.
The absolute main point tho is... I could tell you what kind of gun to get and to go to front sight or some other training facility and tell you to fire a couple hundred rounds a month but.... none of those options are available to you. You gave them away when you figured you could disarm the bad guy and therefore make him harmless or... at least polite.
I got no answers for ya.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
A taser would do, as I don’t necessarily want to kill the intruders; - just inactivate them for a while.
Just start giving them the speeches you give to your pets, that will put them to sleep in no time.
-
I thought shotguns were still legal in Britain? You can't get better home defense than a shotgun.
-
"One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass. In America, unless one resides in a very small number of problematic inner-city quarters or wishes to make a career in the drug trade, one will live a life blessedly untouched by crime."
This is so patently false I stopped right here. Crime limited to the Inner City? I lived in a great neighborhood, complete with Neighborhood Watch, and I can guarantee you that if I left my garage open for an hour or so some a-hole would steal my fishing poles. Now I live in the country, and there's every bit as much crime here as there is in the City.
The only thing we DON'T have is as many home invasions, and that's because bad guys in America know they may get shot breaking into an occupied dwelling, while England has created "easy" victims for the criminal element by banning their citizens the right to protect themselves.
-
I lived in a great neighborhood, complete with Neighborhood Watch, and I can guarantee you that if I left my garage open for an hour or so some a-hole would steal my fishing poles.
Doesn't sound like a great neighborhood at all.
-
Originally posted by ra
Doesn't sound like a great neighborhood at all.
Ra, point is it was a pretty typical upper middle class neighborhood and was still subject to crime....just like every non-gated community in America.
-
Pretty broad statement there, Airhead. We leave the keys in the cars, the bikes in the front yard, and usually, the doors unlocked (except at night when we are sleeping). Hell, even in urban New Orleans, the most crime-ridden city in the US, I always left the keys in the car, and never have I had a burglrey or anything stolen out of my car.
-
Airhead, admit it you just look weak and vulnerable to your neighbors...
(http://www.homerfishing.com/big/1.jpg)
But I do hear Ripsnort just loves your fishing poles...
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"I lived in a great neighborhood, complete with Neighborhood Watch, and I can guarantee you that if I left my garage open for an hour or so some a-hole would steal my fishing poles.
Maybe your neighbors just hate you?
;)
-
Originally posted by ra
I thought shotguns were still legal in Britain? You can't get better home defense than a shotgun.
Yes, I could buy a shotgun. I would be expected to keep it, unloaded, in a gun safe. But in the event of a "hot" burglary, who's going to analyse how quickly I had taken it from the safe, and whether the safe had been locked at the time!
Lizking, I don't know about the US, but here if you leave the keys in the car, your policy is void. If the car is stolen, and the keys were in it, the insurance company won't pay out. Maybe you should take the keys out and lock the car.
-
I don't particularly like guns, but I do keep a 20 Gauge in my closet in case of a home invasion.
For saftey purposes, my wife knows everything about how to use the weapon.
It is kept unloaded, top self of my closet with a trigger lock.
Key to the lock is someplace easily accessable to me at all times, as it the ammunition.
I can go from a dead sleep to ready to shoot in under 90 seconds.
And once the gun is loaded, I will wait on the second floor where Me, my wife and 2 daughters sleep.
Whoever breaks into the house can take whatever they want from the first floor.
If they put one foot on the stairs to come up, I'm shooting.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, OK – I’m sold. Get me a gun. A taser would do, as I don’t necessarily want to kill the intruders; - just inactivate them for a while. Can a dart taser fire at more than one potential assailant, or will I need the up close and personal type that resembles an electric shave for zapping more than one intruder?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/07/do0702.xml
The funny thing is, here in the states they are starting to make noises about stun guns killing some people. So give the lawyers a few more cases and the MFG's will be sued into poverty.
-
Best 1-2 punch for home defense I could find. 12 ga. Mossberg "riot" gun loaded with 0-0 Buckshot, and a .357 magnum with a 2" barrel, loaded with .38 Glasers. Both will drop an attacker in his tracks and make a huge mess of his internals, neither will overpenetrate and hurt the neighbors or the wife.
I have to agree with Lazs on the tazers. The very fact that it's non-lethal makes people think it's ok to use it even if they arent sure about the target. They dont think twice, where they would with a gun. And because they tend not to think of Tazers as a "weapon", people may get lax in making sure they are ready for use at all times. Another reason is that, if you buy a gun (if you have any sense anyway), you make sure you are intimately familiar with it and how to use it, and do so safely. Because the tazers are non-lethal, people may not take the time to become familiar with what they can and cannot do, and/or how to properly use it. Or at least are unfamiliar enough with it that they cant use it fast enough.
And as Krusher said, even a stun gun can be lethal, if the person has a heart problem or some other condition that makes them more vulnerable than the average person. I'm afraid the UK isnt alone in its fanatic liability lawsuit practicioners. If I'm going to be put on trial for killing a home invader, I'm damn sure going to let them know I fully intended to put him down quick to protect myself, not let some lawyer drag out jury sympathies with stories of the criminal's bad heart and my awkwardness with a supposedly 'non-lethal' product causing his death.
-
I like to be from assleep to ready to shoot in like 2 or 3 seconds.. I also like to have something short enough to weild and preferably night sights (tritium) or something that is a natural "pointer" or better yet... both night sights and a natural pointer.
45 auto with night sights works good. All the time. no situation where it won't .... revolver same deal... shotgun.... maybe.... if you have enough room and can see well enough to aim and have the time (yes, you have to aim a shotgun or you will miss).
lazs
-
I have one of those pistol grip guns, so it's pretty easy to maneuver.
With kids in the house, I have to keep it trigger locked and unloaded.
I hope I never have to use it.
-
just curious...if it is inoperable why have it unloaded?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I like to be from assleep to ready to shoot in like 2 or 3 seconds.. I also like to have something short enough to weild and preferably night sights (tritium) or something that is a natural "pointer" or better yet... both night sights and a natural pointer.
45 auto with night sights works good. All the time. no situation where it won't .... revolver same deal... shotgun.... maybe.... if you have enough room and can see well enough to aim and have the time (yes, you have to aim a shotgun or you will miss).
lazs
Exactly why I always have, and always will choose a revolver as my primary home defense weapon. Less moving parts, less to go wrong over time. Since I'm not carrying it concealed, I dont worry about those light-frame option guns either. The shotgun is there in case I actually have time to get out of bed and have to go hunting the bastige through my own house. I agree with the night sights, necessary in the dark. Any wounded animal becomes more dangerous, including a human one. I want to drop him, not wing him.
While the .45 ACP might be the best one-shot-stop round out there, a .38 with Glasers is right up there, without the concerns of shooting through a wall. One of my main concerns when shopping for any home defense round. No matter how well you train yourself to think beyond the target, who knows what will happen in a home invasion situation. The Glasers give me the flexiblity to actually increase the damage done to an intruder while minimizing the chance for a ricochet or a miss to penetrate a wall or door and kill or injure someone accidentally.
-
glasers have spotty reputations... way overhyped.
I am a revolver guy too.... had em all my life and am very comfortable with em.
I bought a Kimber 45 acp with night sights and.... I liike the gun... after a year or so of shooting everythi8ng I could buy or reload out of it.... zero problems. the night sights make it a natural for the nightstand..
I like my chopped down Ruger redhawk in 44 mag but it is a bit much for the house... I would still not hesitate to use it... just that the .45 seems a better comprimise for resedential neighborhoods.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
just curious...if it is inoperable why have it unloaded?
lazs
I'm paranoid.
I worry that it will go off if it is dropped or somehow can be fired even with the trigger guard on.
Plus, won't the shells corrode or something if left in the gun for extended periods?
-
muck... not sure what you have other than it is 20 guage... leve the mag loaded and in a locking rack that won't allow the pump to actuate (like the one police often use in their cars.).
If the ammo stays in there long enough to corrode... you probly shouldn't have a gun. Take it out and shoot it and then clean it once in a while.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
I'm paranoid.
I worry that it will go off if it is dropped or somehow can be fired even with the trigger guard on.
Plus, won't the shells corrode or something if left in the gun for extended periods?
No gun will fire if there is no bullet in the chamber. If you are paranoid, just leave the chamber empty and remember that if you need it.
What, are you going to leave it out in the rain? Considering I sleep with mine in a nylon web holster that is velcroed to the bottom of the nightstand beside the bed, the only thing I really have to worry about is dust bunnys, but I still take it out and remove the bullets and give it a run through with the cloth every so often. Unless I take it to the range, which I like to do to stay comfortable with it once a month or so. Then it gets thorough cleaning ASAP upon return home.
If you mean by "corrode" that the gunpowder will somehow break down with age, I suppose its possible (but not likely in your bedroom). Still, if it makes you feel better, put new shells in it every so often.
Bottom line, you treat guns as an expensive and important tool, and with respect for what they can do, you will never have a problem with it when you need it.
And Lazs, I know there has been some controversy over the real effectiveness of Glaser bullets, but I've shot em through the gun without any problems, and most of the tests I've read from various magazines on them have been favorable. The only real complaints I have seen focus on the energy transfer claims made early on, and on the theory of multiple small wounds from the frangibles causing lots of extra damage. This was especially noted in the MagSafe types. The arguments they use for this are based on gelatin block tests, as are most tests of bullet effectiveness. Detractors use Shaw's tests (from Handgun magazine) with dye inside gelatin to show the dye doesnt seep into the tiny wounds caused by the pellets. In a human body though, blood is pumped under pressure, and if it is just "seeping" into cavities, the person is already dead. I dont agree with the way their tests were performed, or the interpretation of the results, but of course everyone is welcome to an opinion. Besides, I use Cor Bon bullets almost exclusively, and reload my own as well. Cor Bon likes them, and I trust their judgement. I know for a fact they dont overpenetrate, and that solves one of my problems of a handgun home defense round.
-
I've heard that M1 Carbines are great for home defense.
-
Okay..I am flying into Orlando tommorow and will be stayiing in the Kissimmie area. How big of a gun should I have and do they issue them at the airport?
:p
-
Originally posted by Ripper29
Okay..I am flying into Orlando tommorow and will be stayiing in the Kissimmie area. How big of a gun should I have and do they issue them at the airport?
:p
Don't forget to check out the Heritage of Flight musuem.
-
Originally posted by ra
Don't forget to check out the Heritage of Flight musuem.
I was planning on going there, is that the same as the Warbirds musuem?
-
Beetle your either pissed or the daily Torygraph has warped your mind. Admittedly they had their arse whipped in the Galloway libel case but thats no reason to get hysterical.
If you ever feel like butching up or reading the Guardian let me know.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass. In America, unless one resides in a very small number of problematic inner-city quarters or wishes to make a career in the drug trade, one will live a life blessedly untouched by crime."
This is so patently false I stopped right here. Crime limited to the Inner City? I lived in a great neighborhood, complete with Neighborhood Watch, and I can guarantee you that if I left my garage open for an hour or so some a-hole would steal my fishing poles. Now I live in the country, and there's every bit as much crime here as there is in the City.
The only thing we DON'T have is as many home invasions, and that's because bad guys in America know they may get shot breaking into an occupied dwelling, while England has created "easy" victims for the criminal element by banning their citizens the right to protect themselves.
It doesnt say crime is limited to the inner city. It says an indicator of the relative health of society as a whole is how easily you (as an average citizen) can be insulated from the underclass of society (read here, criminals who would break into your house). What the rest is saying, is that STATISTICALLY, unless you live in an inner city slum or choose to be a drug smuggler, you are unlikely to be such a victim. We all know it can happen anywhere, in any town. But nationwide the statistics bear out the statement. Look at how many home invasion crimes they have in a large city, then break THAT down and see what percentage of them happened in low income areas. Then compare those statistics to home breakins in rural america or suburbia. Granted, the statement is slightly misleading as it is written, but I dont think you are interpreting it as the writer intended. Just sayin.
-
All very valid points I'm sure after everything quoted from Beetles Telegraph quote. Lets not forget though that the rag he's quoting is currently licking its fetid wounds after losing it's libel case in court.
Its taken to publishing complete unknowns in a rearguard action to save money.
Other than that, if they say we're all doomed I'm sure the opposite is in fact the case.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
If you ever feel like butching up or reading the Guardian let me know.
Oh sure! I was going to buy a copy tomorrow - Wednesday - when all the non-jobs get advertised. Maybe I can get a new career as a "policy officer (social inclusion)" or a "five-a-day fruit specialist". :lol
-
Your confusing social work with libel lawyers.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
They don't work well enough or they work too well.
Perhaps not in specific cases, but generally they work better in protecting people from injury and property loss.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101429
-
thrawn what are you talking about? I am saying that "less leathal" weapons don't work very well not that guns don'e work very well... guns work just fine.
chortle... The article is simply pointing out the obvious. It is also obvious that only you can be ultimately responsible for your own safety. It is the height of folly to allow your government to disarm you. It is even more insane to expect that they can protect you from all that would do you evil.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is the height of folly to allow your government to disarm you. It is even more insane to expect that they can protect you from all that would do you evil.
My generation wasn't disarmed; we were never armed. (except for war service).
My parents' generation were not disarmed; they were never armed (except for war service).
My grandparents' generation were not disarmed; they were never armed (except for war service).
Maybe if you lived here for any length of time, you could begin to understand. Google is an excellent search engine, but it's not a window upon British life, and neither is Joyce Lee Malcolm's book.
-
The data in Lee Malcoms book is eronious? You were never armed? Then why the increasingly strict gun laws over the decades? Why would you allow it? you are disarmed right now and it is because of the laws made in the last 50-60 years.. that is all there is too it.
If those laws were not allowed to be made... you would be free to choose if you wanted to buy a gun or not.
Your country is a perfect example of incrementalism destroying the right to bear arms... Originaly you had the right.... now you don't and you lost it in tiny little incriments till even you feel that you never had it.
your arguement seems to be that no one cared anyway... If that is the case then you have gotten what you deserve. It is most likely too late for most of you to have your freedoms restored. I don't see any of your politicians making it a point.
As fopr you personaly... you are now asking what kind of gun you should buy.. I am saying the kinds you should buy are impossible for you to own or get good with. even with your wealth they are about out of your reach.. for lower incomes... impossible.
You people didn't trust your neighbors (and the lower classes)so you cut off your own nose to spite your face.
I don't think you should have easier access to firearms than any other law abiding brit. Sorry... just my American classless opinion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn what are you talking about? I am saying that "less leathal" weapons don't work very well not that guns don'e work very well... guns work just fine.
According to FBI statistics the best home defence system is any weapon besides a firearm, the next best is a firearm, followed by not being armed at all.
-
Lazs, you have Lee Malcolm's Guns and Violence, the English Experience, don't you?
I've seen a claim that it distorts facts to make it's case. For example, this paragraph:
That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be “reasonable” force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is “now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law.”
I don't have the book, but I'd be interested to know if that passage is actually in it. Could you look it up? If it has a good index, it should be possible to find references to Glanville Williams. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind checking to see if that paragraph is quoted correctly? In particular the last sentence.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Lazs, you have Lee Malcolm's Guns and Violence, the English Experience, don't you?
I've seen a claim that it distorts facts to make it's case. For example, this paragraph:
I don't have the book, but I'd be interested to know if that passage is actually in it. Could you look it up? If it has a good index, it should be possible to find references to Glanville Williams. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind checking to see if that paragraph is quoted correctly? In particular the last sentence.
Nashwan, I have the book.
I looked in the index for Glanville Williams, and found references on pp185-188. I read these pages, but could not find the passage you quoted.
-
thrawn.. I see no such FBI stat that says that any weapon other than a firearm is better for home defense than a firearm. Can you point me to it? I do not believe that burglars knowing you might have a cricket paddle or nine iron is as much of a deterent as them thinking you might have a gun.... I can't imagine the idiot burglar who would face a gun with less fear than a rolled up newspaper say.
nashwan... I can't seem to find that passage right now.. it may be in there but the book does tend to jump around slightly on the timeline thing. I am pretty much reduced to simply getting in the general time line and scanning the pages for any reference to the year 1967... I have seen several but none that match your paragraph.... will look a bit longer.
The book is interesting. It is indeed opinionated but it does seem like the british experiance has been one of slow incramenatlism taking away basic rights that were once common. Most of the things done to the brits are the things that gun control/gun ban crowd here advocates. For those of us who believe in the basic human right and duty to protect themselves and others.... it is chilling.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chortle... The article is simply pointing out the obvious. It is also obvious that only you can be ultimately responsible for your own safety. It is the height of folly to allow your government to disarm you. It is even more insane to expect that they can protect you from all that would do you evil.
lazs
Lazs, my dig at the article was purely spiteful and aimed at Beelte, the newspaper is a rag imho.
I agree I'm ultimatley responsible for my own safety, but I trust the Govt to disarm the criminal. I live in south east London which by insurance standards is high liability - according to Beetles favourite tabloid it's a no-go area for police, ravaged by crack addicted armed cannibal teenagers.
If I expected to deal with armed criminals I might consider a gun, in the meantime I'll just consider kicking them in the throat.
-
chortle... I am glad that you are still strong enough and agile and well enough to kick a criminal or..... several home invaders... in the throat. I think that youth and vigor tend to distort ones opinion of what is needed for self defense tho. It is common knowledge that criminals will go for the easiest mark... would you then say to the elderly or infirm that if they can't kick the crap out of criminals well...... tough luck?
I also believe that if the burglars in your country knew that, regardless of "class" or physical ability... they were likely to meet with armed resistance if they invades ANY home... well.... I believe that is a lot less selfish of a law than your saying that you are ok because you are the second coming of Bruce Lee. No matter hwo great your abilty... it does nothing to help others.
in my opinion... the law abiding should allways be better armed than the criminal. Laws should be put into effect that make that the most likely not the least likely.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chortle
Lazs, my dig at the article was purely spiteful and aimed at Beelte, the newspaper is a rag imho.
I agree I'm ultimatley responsible for my own safety, but I trust the Govt to disarm the criminal. I live in south east London which by insurance standards is high liability - according to Beetles favourite tabloid it's a no-go area for police, ravaged by crack addicted armed cannibal teenagers.
If I expected to deal with armed criminals I might consider a gun, in the meantime I'll just consider kicking them in the throat.
How is government going to disarm the criminals? By making it illegal to own a gun. What a laugh. If a person is willing to hurt or kill another (a very serious crime), then the fact that the tool is illegal is not going to be important. Criminals break laws. That's why they're called criminals.
And expecting the police to intervene in your behalf is another silly idea. For that to work, you would need a police escort 24/7.
The only real effect of gun prohibition is to prevent law abiding citizens (or subjects) from protecting themselves with the most efficient tool--a firearm.
shubie
-
Lazs, I believe I'd be able to kick them in the throat merely because of the layout of the flat I live in.
Even I would wake up before they kicked in 2 doors and being a flight of stairs up I'd take full advantage. I'm pushing 40 and if I miss a cod liver oil tablet my knee is ****ed. Otherwise I'd be as vulnerable as anyone else.
To keep it short, arming the general population is a good idea if they're used to the responsibilities, concealled carry works. In the UK though, despite our history it would escallate the already dubious crime rates. Arming the Grandad over the road would only make me forget about him rather than keep an eye out.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
How is government going to disarm the criminals? By making it illegal to own a gun. What a laugh. If a person is willing to hurt or kill another (a very serious crime), then the fact that the tool is illegal is not going to be important. Criminals break laws. That's why they're called criminals.
And expecting the police to intervene in your behalf is another silly idea. For that to work, you would need a police escort 24/7.
The only real effect of gun prohibition is to prevent law abiding citizens (or subjects) from protecting themselves with the most efficient tool--a firearm.
shubie
No **** Sherlock, you ever wondered how easier it is to shoot someone to death rather than knife them?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The book is interesting. It is indeed opinionated but it does seem like the british experiance has been one of slow incramenatlism taking away basic rights that were once common. Most of the things done to the brits are the things that gun control/gun ban crowd here advocates. For those of us who believe in the basic human right and duty to protect themselves and others.... it is chilling.
Two things stood out from that book. 1) Joyce Lee Malcolm has never lived here for any length of time, and therefore knows bugger all about the British way of life. 2) Research done about earlier centuries started out with a preconceived outcome with regard to the agenda it seeks to fulfil.
Hey Chortle! SE London? I thought you lived in Hornchurch - maybe that's Overlag. We seem to have a few Essex Boys, but you sound like a Kent Boy. Are you anywhere near Catford/Lewisham?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Two things stood out from that book. 1) Joyce Lee Malcolm has never lived here for any length of time, and therefore knows bugger all about the British way of life. 2) Research done about earlier centuries started out with a preconceived outcome with regard to the agenda it seeks to fulfil.
Hey Chortle! SE London? I thought you lived in Hornchurch - maybe that's Overlag. We seem to have a few Essex Boys, but you sound like a Kent Boy. Are you anywhere near Catford/Lewisham?
I live in Peckham SE15 under the guise of Chortle, nee Trikky, forever under the shame of a previous incarntation. I still know what I'm talking about though....Dont mention my either name to 9 GIAP
-
Originally posted by Chortle
I live in Peckham SE15 under the guise of Chortle, nee Trikky, forever under the shame of a previous incarntation. I still know what I'm talking about though....Dont mention my either name to 9 GIAP
It's still fariz@warrior... ?
How much are your ready to pay for my silence ? :p
I wondered what you had become ,glad to see you're still on board :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
It's still fariz@warrior... ?
How much are your ready to pay for my silence ? :p
I wondered what you had become ,glad to see you're still on board :)
Oh crap, about £2.50, thats about $500 or somewhat less Euro speaking ;)
**** man, you were part of Abbeville Kids?
PS I think Fariz could probably kick everyones arse ;)
-
I'm still an Abbeville kid :)
Even if the squad changed name the spirit is still the same ...
Concerning Fariz last night I've seen he was ranked #1
I guess he still suck :D
-
Thanks Beetle and Lazs. I assumed it was from her book, turns out it was from one of her articles, Gun Control's Twisted Outcome. It's widely available on the web.
This is what Lee Malcolm says:
That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be “reasonable” force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is “now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."
According to this site:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK/gullible4.html
this is whatGlanville Williams actually says:
The requirement of reasonableness is unhappy. Enough has been said in criticism of it, and the CLRC has recommended that it should be expunged from the law. In practice, as we have seen, the requirement may be construed indulgently to the defendant, for, as Holmes J memorably said in the United States Supreme Court, “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” As we shall see in the next section, the requirement is now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law.
So Lee Malcolm cites Glanville Williams as an authority on the law, claiming he says there is doubt wether self defence is still part of the law. What Glanville Williams actually says is there is doubt wether "reasonableness" is still a requirement for the self defence case. In other words, that self defence is easier to justify in law. The exact opposite of what Malcolm claims he's saying.
It doesn't fill me with much confidence in Malcolm's opinions. Either she's deliberately lying, or in her desire to read what she wants to read, she's misunderstood something that's quite simple.
The site that pointed out the error also has some usefull stuff on self defence in the UK if anyone's interested.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn.. I see no such FBI stat that says that any weapon other than a firearm is better for home defense than a firearm. Can you point me to it? I do not believe that burglars knowing you might have a cricket paddle or nine iron is as much of a deterent as them thinking you might have a gun.... I can't imagine the idiot burglar who would face a gun with less fear than a rolled up newspaper say.
'Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:
"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)
"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)'
-
thrawn... I think I would have to have Kleck explain that one. I can not imagine any non firearm weapon that would be more successful against a burglar or why. If the gun came in second then I would like to see the data. I would like to see what types of people were involved. It could simply mean that more burglars are confronted with non firearms weapons and frieghtened off... this would seem likely... you use what you have handy and that is most likely not a gun for most people.
In any case... I would like his defenistion of "loss rates" does he mean people killed defending their homes or loss of property? I can't imagine anyone being better with a knife or bat than with a gun tho no matter what.
What you show of the study makes no sense. How did guns stack up against say... knives? bats? rolled up newspaper? sling shots? lamps? This is not a silly question... beetle was asking about tasers... a non gun... you are implying that any non gun will be more effective against a burglar than any gun in any persons hands. complete nonsense.
pluss he says this... ""[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)'"
huh? using the gun does not cause any injury risk that that would counterbalance its "greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss" greater than what? greater than not having one it would appear... it would appear that he is saying that you are a lot better off with a gun. and that I would agree with. if there is no increased risk then why is it not effective? run out of bullets and then the guy still robs you and tells you how unhappy he was that you shot at him?
lazs
-
I'll try and find more info on the basis of his findings. Hopefully there is more on the net and not just in his book. For what it's worth, Dr. Kleck is pro gun.
-
I am aware of Klecks work. I know he is not only pro gun but pro data in the vein of Lott and others. I think that it is a good trend that so many are looking at the data and not making it up these days...
I think the days of the anti gun groups putting commercials on TV that say a child is murdered buy a gun in America every 28 seconds are about over thankfully. These guys are being called on such nonsensical claims.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think that it is a good trend that so many are looking at the data and not making it up these days...
Any chance of you following this trend? ;)
-
hey I allready admitted that saying that I thought we had about 300 million people was wrong when you confronted me with the earth shattering truth that we only had a little more than 295 million ...
I also admited that I took some data from the sleazest lieing nes service around (the BBC) that was talking ahbout a country they couldn't possibly know anything about (england) and took em at their word.... ah well... fool me once..
lazs
-
It's OK, Lazs - just giving your pot a good stir. :D