Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on August 18, 2006, 01:34:33 PM
-
Those are the two long-standing, traditional responses by human beings to perceived threats.
As far as I'm concerned, the two are instinctive...nature's keys to survival of not only individuals but of species as well.
Disturbingly, modern man appears to be abandoning and debunking the "fight" option. There have been numerous references in threads on these boards referring to the British court's attitudes about the private citizen's use of force, specifically deadly force, in defence of hearth and home.
The law there states, in effect, that flight is the only viable option for a citizen threatened with violence by intruders in their homes.
But what if flight is not an option? What if the home-owner is trapped with their residence, and flight cannot be effected?
Evidently, fight, even under such circumstances, is not an option unless the home-owner fights with nothing more than his bare fists.
This attitude by a government makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
As I said, a disturbing trend, found not just in Britain, but in many other nations.
What do you think the future holds?
Regards, Shuckins
-
teach your kids that it is all BS and show them what it is to be a man and everything will be allright.
Either my generation will die out and be replaced by metrosexuals or... the new generation will revolt against all the nanny rules.
I see evidence all the time... the youngest generation is looking at the rules that don't allow personal freedom or the right to defend yourself and calling BS.
It is the middle generation... the half bald pony tail wearers in their late 30's and 40's who are the real wusses...
Hopefully they won't win out.
I listen to national public radio... it is so far left it would gag ya... they do their very best to get a really old man... or a woman or a brit to do their stories... best for them is a brit woman.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Those are the two long-standing, traditional responses by human beings to perceived threats.
As far as I'm concerned, the two are instinctive...nature's keys to survival of not only individuals but of species as well.
What do you think the future holds?
Regards, Shuckins
While I have forgotten my formal education (Psych 1001) on this matter, my feelings are that it is not instictual, but learned. If it is instinctual, then man by nature is a violent beast. And if by nature we are violent beasts then I also have to believe that eventually we're doomed.
However, as a soldier, you are trained to fight, and that training for many becomes instinctual and hence the propensity fight even for those who would have let flight take over before training.
What does the future hold? I believe the future ebbs and flows. Today we're a more docile world, tomorrow we're violent murdering beasts.
-
Originally posted by Goth
tomorrow we're violent murdering beasts.
so someone who defends their own life is a "violent murdering beast"?
if i am attacked , i will pull my 38, you can lay on the ground and say"please don't hurt me".
-
Hate to let facts get in the way of a good eurosocialist lynching but ...
Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.
Do I have to wait to be attacked?
No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.
What if the intruder dies?
If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:
having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,
you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.
Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service UK website here http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html
-
but... you still can't shoot him can you? that law is worthless to the old and infirm and the weaker sex.
Truth be told... most of you reading this would not be able to stop a real criminal intent on robbery or worse with your bare hands..... he would likely beat you to death while you were talking at him.
lazs
-
It's all a part of their master plan to pussify us. Its pervasive in everything from our public schools to regulating every aspect of our lives into the ground to the tax on us when we die... ya know, so our heirs will be "more equal."
Then we can be productive members of society; equally, peacefully contributing to the economy... and be totally safe. We will all be equal. Ya know, for our own good. :noid
(http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/img/podpic1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by john9001
so someone who defends their own life is a "violent murdering beast"?
if i am attacked , i will pull my 38, you can lay on the ground and say"please don't hurt me".
Maybe my choice of words were a bit strong, and I am by no means a pacifist. Yet, I do have to stand behind the principal of what I said and in this instance killing someone with your .38 would indicate violence.
Violence to me has always been a result of unleashing of forces which are more familiarly equated with beast-like habits. Didn't mean to insult anyone. :t
-
goth.. I do not know if you are aware but there are dangerous sociopaths out there. The ONLY way to stop them is violence in a timely manner... if you hesitate... if you think about it.... you are lost.
You can mostly avoid these people and you probly have... but there is no guarentee... they will hit you with everything they got and so fast that you won't even see it coming.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but... you still can't shoot him can you? that law is worthless to the old and infirm and the weaker sex.
Truth be told... most of you reading this would not be able to stop a real criminal intent on robbery or worse with your bare hands..... he would likely beat you to death while you were talking at him.
lazs
Barmaid shot intruders with a shotgun, does that count? As for the old and infirm, yeah I guess they're screwed. I'm just pointing out that people can use force, and weapons, against burglars in the UK and remain within the law.
Householder/other victim not prosecuted
Robbery at a newsagent's. One of the two robbers died after being stabbed by the newsagent. The CPS did not prosecute the newsagent but prosecuted the surviving robber who was jailed for six years (Greater Manchester);
A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home. There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence (Derbyshire);
Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. Barmaid not prosecuted (Hertfordshire);
Two burglars entered a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died. There was no prosecution of the householder but the remaining burglar was convicted (Lincolnshire);
A middle aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull. The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute (Lancashire).
Taken from here http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/archive/2005/106_05.html
-
you are again... pointing out the inequity of your laws.... the barmaid did not have a firearm... if it had happened at her home she would have been dead meat.
the other examples are of strong young men getting the best of another strong man.... it coulda gone either way.
The fact that more than 50% of your burglaries happen when the people are home points out that the burglars are not afraid of your cricket paddles and sharp tongues.
lazs
-
you did not insult me.
-
only use a gun if you have to it wakes up the nabors and they call the cops. i have several very large and very sharp knives. a bit messy but if the cops are not coming who cares. of coarse gun or knive or bat or whatever. ts all in the desposal of the body afterwards. as long as the nabors havent called the cops cause you shot your 12 gage 4 times at 4am.
silent deadly steathy acid bath no problem.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The fact that more than 50% of your burglaries happen when the people are home points out that the burglars are not afraid of your cricket paddles and sharp tongues.
lazs
Or it can proove the UK burglar have a low IQ.
I'm tired of your biased interpretations.
-
I think the future holds no weapons of any sort as long as sheeple keep electing governments that continually erode constitutional rights. So many people are willing to just piss away their rights in exchange for government promises of safety. Look at all the guys on this very forum defending domestic spying with no warrant. Frog, pot, hot water, etc.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think the future holds no weapons of any sort as long as sheeple keep electing governments that continually erode constitutional rights. So many people are willing to just piss away their rights in exchange for government promises of safety. Look at all the guys on this very forum defending domestic spying with no warrant. Frog, pot, hot water, etc.
Part of me agrees with you about eroding constitutional rights leading to an un-armed society , unable to protect it'self. That concerns me deeply.
The other part of me says if your recieving phone calls from Pakistan f**k your constitutional rights.
-
What if it's grandma calling to say happy birthday?
-
What Grandma doin in Pakistan ? Shopping ?
-
Just chillin' in the ancestral compound.
-
A disarmed nebbish is less likely to be a problem so it is in the interest of the govt., burglars and robbers to keep the population unarmed. Apparently the govt. and obviously quite a few folks here on the bbs have no clue as to the danger of a home invasion. The "burglar" is now commiting a robbery by entering a home occupied by the person who has a legal reason to be there. The fact that an ocupied home invasion is contemplated by the offender indicates that they are not concerned about a confrontation with the resident or they already have in mind to do you harm rather than just commit a property crime.
Another thing that seems to be absent here is an actual experiance or whaqt it feels like to have your home burglarized. It tends to give the victim a feeling of being violated and now fearfull inside their own domicile since they know the offender can come back and get inside the home again. Repeat burglaries are very common.
-
Goth,
The "fight or flight" situation is called that because it is the body's uncommanded response to severe stress. It is an "instinctual" and autonomic response. That takes it out of the "learned behavior" category.
-
Oh come on guys, don't you know it’s better to be civilized and dead then alive and have deprived so poor, poor person his next crack hit etc?
Criminals have rights too, you should just let them take what they want, they need it more then you, you rich selfish, bastages!
Freedom is so overated anyway.
-
A real man wouldn't even both calling the cops. He would kill the robber, strip the meat from the bones, grind it up, and flush it down the toilet. Then he would dissolve the bones in his bathtub and let them ooze down the drain. Because real men don't like court.
-
"Never, EVER, give up the possibility of attack."
Not just defense, attack. It always throws everyone for a loop when you go all out when you're down.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What if it's grandma calling to say happy birthday?
Then what are you worried about? Unless you talk dirty to your grandmother.:confused:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
A disarmed nebbish is less likely to be a problem so it is in the interest of the govt., burglars and robbers to keep the population unarmed. Apparently the govt. and obviously quite a few folks here on the bbs have no clue as to the danger of a home invasion. The "burglar" is now commiting a robbery by entering a home occupied by the person who has a legal reason to be there. The fact that an ocupied home invasion is contemplated by the offender indicates that they are not concerned about a confrontation with the resident or they already have in mind to do you harm rather than just commit a property crime.
Another thing that seems to be absent here is an actual experiance or whaqt it feels like to have your home burglarized. It tends to give the victim a feeling of being violated and now fearfull inside their own domicile since they know the offender can come back and get inside the home again. Repeat burglaries are very common.
:aok
-
Hmm....
It's a great topic - it has got it all: fear, government, guns, and a dash of science thrown in for good measure.
Fear is primal and necessary, and without it man would not have risen to the top of the food chain. Guns are a great equalizer, allowing weaker men to protect themselves, and leveling the playing field from becoming some kind of Darwinian free-for-all. So far, so good.
But here's what I don't get...
(brace for it).... I don't get why you call the Brits out on this, while ignoring - nay supporting your own government's massive and successful effort to get y'all spooked and manipulate you into supporting such ludicrous things like a war against Iraq or rah-rahing the erosion of the Constitution and championing diminishment of your own freedoms... through fear.
While I could care less about guns, it's hard not to notice the common denominator here.
Gun owners tend to be Republicans, and Republicans tend to be uniquely responsive to threats no matter how vague, how unlikely, and no matter how distant.
Why do such fearing people generally tend to align themselves with the Republican party? Why does fear have such an impact on them? Why does Rove feel so comfortable on basing an entire campaign on fear alone were it not for the fact that it drives directly at the heart of a huge segment of the population whose default position tends to be one of fear?
I dunno...
I guess I'm just curious. And... the science of fear could be enlightening and no doubt has something to do with it.
It's like a chicken and egg thing. I'm not sure if the Republican leadership is playing their base for the frightened people that they are, or if the Republican party is made up of sincerely frightened people.
Ultimately, it struck me as kind of absurd that a post would be made here which attempts to explain fear and then tie it in with England's gun laws while oblivious to the fact that the USA is overwhelmingly being driven and governed through the use of fear as an acceptable, even embraced tactic.
And it's working. Perfectly.
To sum up - you know what they say about people living in glass houses...
(and no, the answer isn't to start stockpiling ammo, plastic sheeting, electrician's tape and canned tuna)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Goth,
The "fight or flight" situation is called that because it is the body's uncommanded response to severe stress. It is an "instinctual" and autonomic response. That takes it out of the "learned behavior" category.
Although the source documentation is usually suspect (by me at least) it is a good basis for what I was trying to interpret pre-research. According to this article, conditioning and environment play a role.
Instinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct)
Now, in your defense Mav, when stimulus occurs it creates a chemical reaction which is something that is instinctual. That reaction further influences the brain into making the body respond in fight or flight.
I say influence, because the brain of human beings (or beings with reason) can further influence through learning and break chemical reaction. Thus, those prone to flight, with training can learn to fight.
-
Nash,
I'm kinda late getting back to this thread, and I don't have a lot of time to go into any kind of lengthy explanation of what my original purpose was in posting it. So I'll try to clarify things as quickly as possible.
This was not meant to be a post about guns, but about a changing attitude. The reference to the British came to the fore because of some incidences others have mentioned in related threads on violence; specifically, those incidences in which British citizens had used some type of implement in the application of deadly force in defence of home and family.
Whether they used baseball bats, fireplace pokers, shotguns, or a blunt excrement, the common theme of these posts was that prosecutors went after the law-abiding citizens for using "undue" force.
Thus, the question, rephrased; Is modern political-correctness attempting to erase and deny the existence of one of the most basic of human instincts, the fight for self-preservation, leaving only the option of flight as a legal option when faced with deadly violence?
And, secondly, is this becoming a prevailing trend in other nations as well?
Republican paranoia and the war in Iraq eh? Way to stay on topic there my man.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I have a curious question.. How many of you have been a victim of a violent crime? Like, getting robbed at gunpoint, knife point, beaten up by a mob,....etc...
I was victim of an inhouse robbery by a knife . And I promise, it's not going to happen again. Now that I have a family & a child to take care of, never will I be afraid of someone walking in this house & threatening to harm us. Before I was robbed, I wasn' sure if I should buy a gun. Now I have 5, I'm in the NRA, I go to the range to practice routinely, I'm training my lady to fire safely, and I will Never be afraid of someone trying to harm us, nor will my family.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Nash,
...
Regards, Shuckins
You ask:
"Is modern political-correctness attempting to erase and deny the existence of one of the most basic of human instincts, the fight for self-preservation?"
I ask:
Is modern political.... something... exploiting the existence of one of the most basic of human instincts, the fight for self-preservation?
Hey - I'm all for the acknowledging of the central nervous system's, brain's and hell, amygdala's role in all of this.
And I think you raised a great question.
Now...... Who's scared of the answer?
-
Nash,
Fair enough. Although you might have started your OWN thread with that question.
Demagogues and yellow journalists and kings and counselors and jihadists have been exploiting that instinct for thousands of years.
Sometimes they've been right. Sometimes they've made mistakes and been wrong. And sometimes they have flat-out lied about it.
And we've already plowed that ground many times. I don't think there is anything new that any of us could add to that debate that we haven't already discussed, ad nauseous.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I got punched in the back of the head at a bar one time. The guy ran away while I was looking for my glasses
-
I still think the popularly quoted bible phrase "the meek shall inherit the earth" is a bad translation... It seems just as likely to mean "if you don't stand up for yourself you'll end up dead and buried"
-
If your, or your families life is threatened you may kill an intruder with a knife, gun or any other means. All of them are available in most homes.
-
Hi Shuckins,
The world population increases about 6,000,000 people every month. What information are you using to say our species is in danger? Not just posts from the O'Club, I hope? ;)
Without parsing your entire post, suffice it to say I don't think your premise is valid.
-
I don't believe that shuckins original premise that defending yourself in your home could render you liable to prosecution in every case and I don't think there is a general wimpifying of the male population in the west. We are no more or less aggressive than we've ever were. But it is fair to say that violence is less and less acceptable in our society. That is a good thing. In an ideal society there is no need to have a gun or a knife to defend yourself. In practice in many areas of Europe and North America this is virtually the case. Where I live right now it's unheard of.
It does happen that every now and then someone kills a burglar in their house but each case needs to be treated on it's merits. In fact there is a notorious case here recently. A farmer shot an intruder on his farm. At first it looked open and shut, self defence. But it transpired later that the farmer had shot the intruder then followed the wounded man, beat him with the stock of his gun, then reloaded and finished him off with a shot in the back. He was convicted of manslaughter in the end, very reluctantly by a jury. Unfortunately he crossed the line from self defence into attack. There were all kinds of mitigating circumstances but it was the final fatal shot that got him into trouble in the law's eyes. If he had killed him with the first shot he would never have been prosecuted. A useful lesson not lost on the criminals. Farm burglaries dropped since then, naturally all farmers have shotguns.
In general in nature flight is preferable to fight for the simple reason that fighting is dangerous to both parties. As a rule most burglars will run rather than confront a houseowner even if the houseowner is a little old lady.
I think at one point there was a tendency in some places or countries to favour the criminal in this situation but the public in general and even the media have expressed disquiet about it and in general the police and politicians have taken note. It is too easy to take a general snapshot of a time and say this is the trend for the future. The fact that many people notice a trend means it may well be stopped in it's tracks.
-
This was not meant to be a post about guns, but about a changing attitude. The reference to the British came to the fore because of some incidences others have mentioned in related threads on violence; specifically, those incidences in which British citizens had used some type of implement in the application of deadly force in defence of home and family.
Whether they used baseball bats, fireplace pokers, shotguns, or a blunt excrement, the common theme of these posts was that prosecutors went after the law-abiding citizens for using "undue" force.
Can you give some examples?
The British press are known to twist a fact or two in the search for a good story (eg Tony Martin, Carl Lindsay)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hmm....
Gun owners tend to be Republicans,
Lol...Would like to see your source for this little gem of knowledge.
You're a very smart guy Nash, without a doubt but honestly do you actually believe what you wrote above?
-
straffo.. interviews with criminals in the U.S. shows that they do not go into homes when they know the person may be home because they fear being shot by the homeowner more than they fear the police. You are the one who is making outlandish claims... people in england are dumber than in America? what about french?
nash.. you seem to be saying that people who want to own firearms for protection are unduly paranoid and the republican party preys on this paranoia. I honestly think that in some twisted way you believe this... it would explain your bizzare attitude towards firearms.
In the first place... many firearms owners place protection far down on the list of reasons they own guns so... that part is not all that relevent. they vote republican because democrats would deprive them of the right to own firearms.
But.. there is a very large group of firearms owners... maybe 60-80 million and even ones who don't but sympathize... that realize that firearms rights are for the reasons that the founders explained and... a right.
As for "paranoid" your chances of being the victim of a violent crime or burglary is about 1 in 4 in America and other countries... to own a firearm and have it handy seems a reasonable precaution rather than a paranoia...
On the other hand... lets take the democrats... your chances of getting into a car wreck where a seatbelt will save you or make a difference in injuries or.. you chances of a helmet saving your life are more like 1 in 20 or so yet... the democrats will mandate and... we will wear such uncomfortable and ridiculous devices no matter what.... so who is the paranoid here?
who is the party playing on paranoia? A 12 oz .357 magnum in a front pocket holster is a hell of a lot less trouble and intrusive than putting on an annoying seatbelt 5 times a day or more or wearing a hot and muffling helmet to run to the store.
The democrats are welcome to prey on my paranoia as far as firearms are concerned... all they have to do is recognize the second amendment and we can get on to more important political matters.... course then... they wouldn't get money from sorros and other foreigh and domestic billionaires with whacko fear of firearms.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
straffo.. interviews with criminals in the U.S. shows that they do not go into homes when they know the person may be home because they fear being shot by the homeowner more than they fear the police. You are the one who is making outlandish claims... people in england are dumber than in America? what about french?
Here they fear Alarm system because they know police will be present within 5 minutes.
-
only a fool would put his life and his families in the hands of the police and an electronic alarm system.
I am sure that even in your country of very rich people and very nice crooks.... that there a few sociopaths and that there are a few people that can't afford an effective alarm system..... there may even be a few non metrosexuals who live out in areas that a 30 minute wait or longer is not uncommon.
What would you have them do?
Oh wait... I believe you have a tradition for that? "let them eat cake" is the policy I believe that you invented.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
only a fool would put his life and his families in the hands of the police and an electronic alarm system.
Perhaps only a fool living were you do. Around these parts its common to do so and it works well.
-
my guess is that you would be fine in your white bread country even without any police or alarms. I don't want to live in your country either tho.
lazs
-
White bread? dunno what that means.
We sertainly need police. There is crime but you dont need guns to defend yourself because burglars usually hit houses with noone in them or run if you hit the light switch. If you knowlingly seek out dangerous parts of cities at night in high heals and your purse flapping in the breeze you ask for trouble.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Here they fear Alarm system because they know police will be present within 5 minutes.
That's at least 2 minutes longer than it would take to search the house for valuables and remove same after killing the occupants. They can always return again for other items they left behind after the Police and the bodies of the occupants are gone.
Still a respectable response time but the likelyhood of stopping the offense in the act is negligable.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
only a fool would put his life and his families in the hands of the police and an electronic alarm system.
A fool living in the US, in France even the people doing "hold-up" not often have real weapons.
And people living 30 min out of police usually are not targeted for 2 reasons :
- they are far from the burglar
- they are armed.
-
You posted when I was posting :)
Originally posted by Maverick
That's at least 2 minutes longer than it would take to search the house for valuables and remove same after killing the occupants. They can always return again for other items they left behind after the Police and the bodies of the occupants are gone.
Still a respectable response time but the likelyhod of stopping the offense in the act is negligable.
Killing occupand with what ? a spoon ? a fork ?
Don't forget we have a lost less weapon availlable than in the US.
There is almost no case of burglary with murder where I live, the last one I heard of was some 5 years ago and it was the headline of all nation wide new paper.
-
Straffo,
Everyone has an access to a knife. It doesn't take much to find a large rock either not to mention a piece of pipe, large stick like a bat etc.. I'm sure you get the idea. If a burglar is intent on an occupied home invasion you can bet they'll have some kind of weapon. Not that many folks, especially those who figure the Police will protect them have any inkling about protecting themselves from someone kicking the door down. The will likely be frozen in shock while the entry is made. Even in France.
Now stop being obtuse.
-
Two different worlds Maverick.
Yes you can if you are extremly unlucky get robbed by someone who doesnt leave when they see you are home, but thats no reason to arm yourself. The chanse that this happes is minute compared to every other everyday accident you can find yourself in. You dont stop driving, driving old cars, go out partying at night or any other "risky" thing just on the odd chanse that something may happen. We would all live in bunkers and wear body armor if we had to go out.
There is apparently a big difference in how crimes are commited in our respective countries. I have no doubt that if i lived in a high-crime area in America or anywere else for that matter that i would arm myself, but since we dont need that you must see that there are differences. If we had the need then we would and the laws would also be different.
Do you think the gun laws are different here just because the governmetns wants us harmed?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What if it's grandma calling to say happy birthday?
Then it's grandma calling to say happy birthday..BFD!
Who cares.
Anything to hide? Is grandma suspected of being a terrorist or associated with them? If not then I doubt they would be listening in on your conversation.
-
Nilsen,
Stop reading anything into my post other than the intent to reply to Straffo's post. You are making assumptions and inferences that go beyond what I was saying. Straffo set the situation in his post about the Police response. I was just commenting on that. Nothing more.
Believe me I have more that a little experiance in burglaries, burglars and folks who like to prey on others. It kind of went with the job I had.
The chances of you being burglarized even in the SW here in Tucson aren't that great even though they have a significant gang problem, drug problem and illegal alien problem. It isn't an "atmosphere of fear" situation going on. I also know the average response time for the Police to get to the scene and that only starts AFTER they are called. If no one outside the house notices the situation the Police will only be called long after the criminals are gone. Police are not proactive except in a couple areas like traffic, thery are reactive which means after the fact.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Two different worlds Maverick.
Do you think the gun laws are different here just because the governmetns wants us harmed?
no, your governments want to protect you, the history of europe for the past 2000 years is that every time europeans gets their hands on weapons they turn into mass murders, so for your own protection you are not allowed to have weapons.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nilsen,
Stop reading anything into my post other than the intent to reply to Straffo's post. You are making assumptions and inferences that go beyond what I was saying. Straffo set the situation in his post about the Police response. I was just commenting on that. Nothing more.
Believe me I have more that a little experiance in burglaries, burglars and folks who like to prey on others. It kind of went with the job I had.
The chances of you being burglarized even in the SW here in Tucson aren't that great even though they have a significant gang problem, drug problem and illegal alien problem. It isn't an "atmosphere of fear" situation going on. I also know the average response time for the Police to get to the scene and that only starts AFTER they are called. If no one outside the house notices the situation the Police will only be called long after the criminals are gone. Police are not proactive except in a couple areas like traffic, thery are reactive which means after the fact.
Sorry.. didnt mean to stick my nose in your discussion :)
I dont live in America so I have always tried to stay away from the domestic debate on US gunlaws. They are none of my business and because I dont live there my info is rather limited.
Its just that often people living in America (not saying you) try to tell us living in other places what is best for us, or atleast thats the way debates tend to end up. The gun "fans" on your side of the pond may also think that we know best what works on your side. For us your gun culture is as baffeling as ours may seem to you.
Ill try to be more precise in my statements, but if I forget to underline it then for the record I speak on behalf of our point of view and what works here and not how it is over on your end.
-
Originally posted by john9001
no, your governments want to protect you, the history of europe for the past 2000 years is that every time europeans gets their hands on weapons they turn into mass murders, so for your own protection you are not allowed to have weapons.
lol.. go fish in a different pond john ;)
-
Nilsen,
I often think that the concept that several folks (Euros and others) have of the "gun culture" here is rather skewed. It is not a situation that everyone is afraid (really fearful) of someone breaking into their house. That is a very small part of the reason to have a firearm.
Hell, I carried one almost every day of my life for almost 20 years in very unfriendly areas. I'm not afraid to go around unarmed and I have done so almost exclusively for over 12 years since I retired. That includes being in over 30 different states in the US as well. I have not felt intimidated, fearful or worried that I did not have a weapon on me. I do have more than one in the RV as I use them for "fun" shooting like trap with Toad, Rude, Stringer and a couple other TAS guys in Kansas. I also do some informal target shooting, "plinking" with a pistol or two. It's not a "gotta protect me and the homestead from all the bad guys" situation. Even in AZ. I don't see lots of folks walking around with a gun on their hip. It's rather unusual in fact. The old west shows are not now nor are they really a true representation of "then" either.
Like having a fast car, motorcycle or boat, it's a tool to use to have fun with that can also be misused. Until I do so there should be no reason I have to ask to use one or have it. It IS one of my rights (unlike the car motorcycle and boat things). ;)
Originally posted by Nilsen
Sorry.. didnt mean to stick my nose in your discussion :)
I dont live in America so I have always tried to stay away from the domestic debate on US gunlaws. They are none of my business and because I dont live there my info is rather limited.
Its just that often people living in America (not saying you) try to tell us living in other places what is best for us, or atleast thats the way debates tend to end up. The gun "fans" on your side of the pond may also think that we know best what works on your side. For us your gun culture is as baffeling as ours may seem to you.
Ill try to be more precise in my statements, but if I forget to underline it then for the record I speak on behalf of our point of view and what works here and not how it is over on your end.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Straffo,
Everyone has an access to a knife. It doesn't take much to find a large rock either not to mention a piece of pipe, large stick like a bat etc.. I'm sure you get the idea. If a burglar is intent on an occupied home invasion you can bet they'll have some kind of weapon. Not that many folks, especially those who figure the Police will protect them have any inkling about protecting themselves from someone kicking the door down. The will likely be frozen in shock while the entry is made. Even in France.
Now stop being obtuse.
Why don't you ask what I own ?
(legally)
-
Straffo,
You could own a 20 mm cannon for all I know. It's irrelevent to the post you made earlier. You did not mention it was yourself you were speaking of. My response to you was also not predicated on it being you that we were speaking of.
It doesn't make any difference what you own if you have neither access to it nor the will and ability to use it at the time it is needed.
I have all kinds of different weapons including a small battle rifle collection and numerous handguns. Almost all of them are where I can't get to them as they are in another state. The small selection I have with me are available. I also have the training, mindset and will to use one if it is truly necessary as well as the ability to not have to use one if I can't get it. Most folks don't react quickly or properly to a threat. They freeze with shock until it's too late to be properly active.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Straffo,
You could own a 20 mm cannon for all I know. It's irrelevent to the post you made earlier. You did not mention it was yourself you were speaking of. My response to you was also not predicated on it being you that we were speaking of.
If you start a post with my name you are addressing me , none else.
So why all of a sudden changing the subject from me to the other French citizen ?
And btw as I'm not parading the streets with my gun* I'm a potential target like all the people of my country.
A contrario to what Lazs pretend owning gun don't make you living safely you're sentence : "Most folks don't react quickly or properly to a threat. They freeze with shock until it's too late to be properly active."
fit 99% of the people and is the reason I'm against weapon at home.
*and it'll be pretty stupid as 99% of the time I've no ammo at home.
-
"If you knowlingly seek out dangerous parts of cities at night in high heals and your purse flapping in the breeze you ask for trouble." --Nilsen
You're saying crime is the victim's fault?
"I have no doubt that if i lived in a high-crime area in America or anywere else for that matter that i would arm myself, but since we dont need that you must see that there are differences." --Nilsen
You think it can't happen to you?
Suffice it to say I disagree with your philosophy, Nilsen.
As a general comment, I think the only "climate of fear" is among the anti-gun crowd--they fear guns and want them banned. Such people make headway because many other people are complacent and all too willing to allow the banning of freedoms they don't personally use. "Ban anything you like, so long as it isn't something I do".
J_A_B
-
"If you knowlingly seek out dangerous parts of cities at night in high heals and your purse flapping in the breeze you ask for trouble." --Nilsen
You're saying crime is the victim's fault?
Yes its the victims fault for knowingly going to unsafe places, but no they are ofcourse not at fault for the crime itself.
---------------------------------------------
"I have no doubt that if i lived in a high-crime area in America or anywere else for that matter that i would arm myself, but since we dont need that you must see that there are differences." --Nilsen
You think it can't happen to you?
No "high-crime" areas cant happen to me... best answer i can give to that difuse question
---------------------------------------------------
Suffice it to say I disagree with your philosophy, Nilsen.
As a general comment, I think the only "climate of fear" is among the anti-gun crowd--they fear guns and want them banned. Such people make headway because many other people are complacent and all too willing to allow the banning of freedoms they don't personally use. "Ban anything you like, so long as it isn't something I do".
J_A_B
I partly agree with you. Most humans want their enviroment to be as safe as it can be, and tend to want unsafe elements removed. If they feel that guns are such an element its natural to want it removed. If you can quote me on wanting guns to be banned then by all means find a place i have said it. ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
If you start a post with my name you are addressing me , none else.
So why all of a sudden changing the subject from me to the other French citizen ?
And btw as I'm not parading the streets with my gun* I'm a potential target like all the people of my country.
A contrario to what Lazs pretend owning gun don't make you living safely you're sentence : "Most folks don't react quickly or properly to a threat. They freeze with shock until it's too late to be properly active."
fit 99% of the people and is the reason I'm against weapon at home.
*and it'll be pretty stupid as 99% of the time I've no ammo at home.
Straffo,
I don't believe you are that dense here. If all you want to do is have an argument go somewhere else. My responses to you are all based on the first one of yours I quoted about being safe because of the Police response to an alarm and the response to me you gave regarding weapons in the house. In neither one of those posts did you indicate, nor did I that we were speaking about you or your house. That's why I said whatever weapon you had was irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Now again. I was not referring to anyone elses comments other than yours so I was not commenting either way about Laz's statements. Contrary to what you may think I am not Laz, I do not speak for him nor does he speak for me. Sometines we agree on things, other times we are rather opposed.
I didn't say you were parading the streets with your gun did I.
I also did not state 99% of the people either. Don't try to twist what I said. If you can't refrain from doing that then there is no need to have a discussion.
-
straffo....this is pretty funny... the people in the country of your countries have guns and the burglars don't bother em because of that yet.... you claim that guns do no good anyway because only one percent of the people in the world can use em effectively.... and... you and nelson seem to think that not having guns keeps down crime and homicide
yet... out in the country there is no crime or homicide... it all happens in your big cities where everyone is unarmed.. this is some really laughable logic.
I am saying that you could have the same gun laws as arizona and there would be no more homicides than you have now... I am guessing that there would even be somewhat less crime.
As for the "wild west"? In the so called wild west where everyone was armed... crime and especialy murder were rare... rape or even talking badly to women was allmost unheard of.
Young men would kill each other on occassion but the vast majority was mutal combat.
even so... at the height of the violence in tombstone and deadwood... the fireams death rate was a mere fraction of that of our large unarmed cities of today.
Guns do not create more homicides. You gave up your rights like old women for no good reason.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
straffo....this is pretty funny... the people in the country of your countries have guns and the burglars don't bother em because of that yet.... you claim that guns do no good anyway because only one percent of the people in the world can use em effectively.... and... you and nelson seem to think that not having guns keeps down crime and homicide
Where did I wrote that ?
-
Originally posted by Flit
What Grandma doin in Pakistan ? Shopping ?
Heck, she's shopping for RPG's and a few mortar launchers of course. roflol.
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
-
ok straffo... then I guess we have no problem.. do you or don't you think that letting human beings own their own firearms to defend themselves or for recreation is a problem?
" fool living in the US, in France even the people doing "hold-up" not often have real weapons.
And people living 30 min out of police usually are not targeted for 2 reasons :
- they are far from the burglar
- they are armed."
Now... you seem to be saying something different here.. You claim that in the city you are safe with alarms and a 5 minute or more wait for the police.... do you know how long 5 minutes are when trying to defend yourself? then... you claim that people in the country are safe because they are armed.
Why is it good for people in the country to be armed and not those in the city? Is there some magic time limit where a person can't be killed by? You can't injure or kill someone in what? 5 minutes?
you aren't making any sense to me, so how bout you just tell me what you think gun laws should be and why.
I will start out... there should be none except for children and the mentaly incompetent and people now in prison.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok straffo... then I guess we have no problem.. do you or don't you think that letting human beings own their own firearms to defend themselves or for recreation is a problem?
It's not a problem for me I own and owned weapon (even if currently I've none at home as it's more a danger than a deterrent,where I live).
Now... you seem to be saying something different here.. You claim that in the city you are safe with alarms and a 5 minute or more wait for the police.... do you know how long 5 minutes are when trying to defend yourself? then... you claim that people in the country are safe because they are armed.[/B]
As I said previously, it quite unprobable to see and armed burglar where I live,burglare will more likely run than stay to threaten you.
The exception being if they really want to keep you hostage but we are not in this case speaking of the average burglar but more of what I can describe as "professional" criminal and it happen perhaps 1 or 2 time per year.
Why is it good for people in the country to be armed and not those in the city? [/B]
I don't say it's good ,I say in the country people own gun more than in town (they hunt you know)
Is there some magic time limit where a person can't be killed by? You can't injure or kill someone in what? 5 minutes?[/B]
Killed by what ? a fist ?
you aren't making any sense to me, so how bout you just tell me what you think gun laws should be and why.[/B]
Law should depend of the context.
French law won't work in the USA. And I don't pretend you should use our.
US law won't work in France.Don't pretend we should use your.
I'm clearer ? (I've wrote this post in a hurry so it may content incoherences)
-
Law should depend of the context.
Wrong, law should only be based on freedom.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
There have been numerous references in threads on these boards referring to the British court's attitudes about the private citizen's use of force, specifically deadly force, in defence of hearth and home.
The law there states, in effect, that flight is the only viable option for a citizen threatened with violence by intruders in their homes.
Originally posted by Trikky
Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service UK website here http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html
I'm curious, were you planning to respond to this debunking of your original premise Shuckins?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wrong, law should only be based on freedom.
Sorry ?
Law and freedom in the same sentence ?
tss tss ... it simply don't work.
-
straffo.. am I to understand that you are able to posses and even carry a firearm as you wish? I am not familiar with french gun laws but is that the norm or is there some reason that you are so much better than your fellows that you are allowed this freedom and they are not?
I am also confused about the criminals not being armed. I would make a bet that I could get a firearm within a few days of being in your country and not even speaking the language. I would guess that criminals have no problem getting one either soooooo...
The penalties must be high for gun crime, in which case... you would not need to have honest citizens give up theirs to get the same result or.... you have a different type of criminal than we do which.... in that case... there is no need for gun laws either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
straffo.. am I to understand that you are able to posses and even carry a firearm as you wish?
Well actually I can't anymore as I didn't renew my licence some time ago (and that's why I've not weapon at home anymore).
You can own up to 7 weapon of "catégorie 1" handgun with caliber over 7,65 or semi-auto, full auto are not autorized but can be used (go figure...)
Carrying a non neutralized gun is forbiden , by neutralized I mean immediatly ready to be used ,so you can't use it for your own protection.
I am not familiar with french gun laws but is that the norm or is there some reason that you are so much better than your fellows that you are allowed this freedom and they are not?[/B]
I'm not better , it's just they dont ask to be allowed there is nothing difficult you just have to be member of the french shooting federation follow basic training and sometime police will make an inquiry.
I am also confused about the criminals not being armed. [/B]
They usualy don't need to be armed.
I would make a bet that I could get a firearm within a few days of being in your country and not even speaking the language. [/B]
Certainly ,it's not really difficult.
I would guess that criminals have no problem getting one either soooooo...[/B]
Yep , but they also lack the minimal training to be dangerous and usually use the weapon to kill other criminals :)
Except for the brain dead, criminals know they'll likely not survive an encounter with police.
The penalties must be high for gun crime, in which case... [/B]
They are high but I don't know how it compare to the US penalties
you would not need to have honest citizens give up theirs to get the same result or.... you have a different type of criminal than we do which.... in that case... there is no need for gun laws either.
lazs [/B]
The current statusquo in france limit the number of weapon available* to the citizen and to the criminal plus as we don't have a real gun culture there is very few people in the population able to use a gun without killing themselves
*well officially ,I've heard there is still some WWII package hidden somewhere :))
-
as I thought... you don't have a gun culture and your criminals at this point are not as homicidal as hours. Even without guns... our criminals are more violent than yours.
That is just the way it is. I like our society tho even with that minor problem... very vibrant and interesting and full of opportunity and choices.
I do heartily dissagree with you that the average citizen is not proficient enough with firearms to have them be of any use and especially that they are dangerous to themselves. Our accident rate is way down... some of it has to do with better firearms and some with better education.
Just pointing the gun at a criminal works most of the time here tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Police are not proactive except in a couple areas like traffic, thery are reactive which means after the fact.
Just as an aside.. this is 100% correct, but why?, in case it's not obvious; police depts directly benefit from the fines generated from proactive traffic enforcement.
The city makes $0.00 deploying the same officers to pro actively protect you.
One of my favorite things to do working uniform patrol was follow the burglary trends...it was usually 1 or 2 local a holes operating near their home in the middle of the day looking for opportunity.
From there I'd creep up and down the residential streets that were hit... real slow, all day (minus chasing the radio) back and forth. Pulling folks over junk boxes, stopping citizens of ill repute.
Sure enough I caught the dirt-bag junkies in the act and cleared 32 burglary cases, only to get chewed out for having a thin end of month stat sheet.
Next month I was assigned to work police hell; a traffic car and sat on the corner of Walk & Dont Walk churning out tickets. End of month, I had a sparkling stat sheet that made the officials who signed my paycheck very happy.