Announcement

**MikeH** · July 27, 2003, 06:46

I know. Hence most of the difference in attitude, I know which I prefer.

**Dinner** · July 27, 2003, 07:02

Originally posted by MikeH
We're smart enough to know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable force.

Chances of a petty burglar having a gun are so tiny it's barely measurable.

Maybe in your country...

**MikeH** · July 27, 2003, 07:03

We're talking about my country.

**Solly** · July 27, 2003, 07:04

Yes, MikeH's country.

**MikeH** · July 27, 2003, 07:08

Do a burglary, very low police response, tiny chance of getting caught.

Commit a crime with a firearm, massive police response, much more chance of getting caught, much higher penalties.

**Solly** · July 27, 2003, 07:11

Do a burglary, very low police response, tiny chance of getting caught.

for the statement,

for our lack of a decent law-enforcement power.

**Dinner** · July 27, 2003, 07:12

I know Mike. I simply was saying what I would do. In any event a home owner should have the right to defend himself and his property without some arm chair magistrate dictating what he should or shouldn't have done. How do you know the intruder isn't armed? You see one but do you know if there's more? Is your life in danger? Can you be sure it's not? Is it worth risking your life on an "I think so" anwser?

With all of these variables is it reasonable for a man who's home has been envaded to fear for his life? I'd say so. Also the invader should have no rights to sue; that is one good tort reform we've gotten through lately in California. If you are commiting a violent felony against a property owner or tenent and you are injured while commiting this felony you don't get to sue anybody for any thing. I really like that law because it protects the victim against being victimized again by the same criminal.

**Drake Tungsten** · July 27, 2003, 07:15

If I ever decide to take up a life of crime, I think I'll head to Britain. Sounds like a consequence-free environment.

**MikeH** · July 27, 2003, 07:34

Wow, I actually agree with a Bodds post. Our police force isn't big enough to combat every crime out there, but whos is?

**Solly** · July 27, 2003, 07:38

Wow, I actually agree with a Bodds post. Our police force isn't big enough to combat every crime out there, but whos is?

It should be big enough to pose a reasonable risk that the criminal will be caught.

Ignore poverty excuses..inequality ramblings.. the real cause of crime is the lack of risk of being caught - something that has fallen and fallen as we have become weaker on crime, weaker on the causes of it.

**MikeH** · July 27, 2003, 07:39

Originally posted by Oerdin
I know Mike. I simply was saying what I would do. In any event a home owner should have the right to defend himself and his property without some arm chair magistrate dictating what he should or shouldn't have done. How do you know the intruder isn't armed? You see one but do you know if there's more? Is your life in danger? Can you be sure it's not? Is it worth risking your life on an "I think so" anwser?

Someone (one of the Americans) once posted a thing here about how much more likely you were to get killed if you confronted your burglar with a weapon (based on US stats). You discover a burglar they are most likely to run, if they think you are going to shoot them in the back when they run, what's the point? Their best option is to fight.

Originally posted by Oerdin
With all of these variables is it reasonable for a man who's home has been envaded to fear for his life? I'd say so.

Not here really. Well, my reaction would be "don't take my stuff!" not, "they are going to kill me", that second probably wouldn't cross my mind.

Originally posted by Oerdin Also the invader should have no rights to sue; that is one good tort reform we've gotten through lately in California. If you are commiting a violent felony against a property owner or tenent and you are injured while commiting this felony you don't get to sue anybody for any thing. I really like that law because it protects the victim against being victimized again by the same criminal.

I don't disagree with that...

**Solly** · July 27, 2003, 07:41

Someone (one of the Americans) once posted a thing here about how much more likely you were to get killed if you confronted your burglar with a weapon (based on US stats). You discover a burglar they are most likely to run, if they think you are going to shoot them in the back when they run, what's the point? Their best option is to fight.

You're ignoring that the threat of an armed household will likely reduce - other things equal - the likelihood and regularity of burglary.

**MikeH** · July 27, 2003, 07:43

Originally posted by Boddington's It should be big enough to pose a reasonable risk that the criminal will be caught.

Ignore poverty excuses..inequality ramblings.. the real cause of crime is the lack of risk of being caught - something that has fallen and fallen as we have become weaker on crime, weaker on the causes of it.

That is true, people do commit less crimes if they are more likely to get caught. People aren't willing to pay for it though. They also won't stand for the restrictions to our personal freedoms that it would require.

Govenment announces tax rises, they lose voters. Plans to re-route money from elsewhere, voters (quite rightly) don't believe them.

**Solly** · July 27, 2003, 07:51

Make the NHS private and that would free up a lot of money.

Those who fund the NHS tend to pay twice for medical treatment - that isn't right.

**MikeH** · July 27, 2003, 07:54

Normal good working people not being able to afford healthcare isn't right.

Announcement

Tony Martin and stuff

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment