Hey Slowwy! You should be proud of your daughter!

[MikeH]

I thought that the right to life and self defense was a universal value.

The difference I was trying to establish here was the difference of the level of acceptance of people using a gun for self defence.

[MikeH]

American law, mostly (believe it or not), requires the force used to proportional to the threat. Lethal force can only be used if there was a legitimate fear of being killed yourself (using lethal force for the threat of rape just doesn't cut it).

So it's exactly the same as the UK then.

[kentonio]

I'm Catholic. I don't support Capital punishment for anyone.

What are you talking about? The holy see have executed hundreds of people over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_the_Holy_See

[dannubis]

Thread summary:

Ben: Yippikayee muthafukkars. 2 burglars died

[Kidlicious]

One of them apparently had a gun so I would say firing a gun is quite proportional.

Actually they just said that a gun was found at the scene.

[SlowwHand]

So you think she was suffering a string of home invasions?

[Kidlicious]

No. Actually there's nothing wrong with the statement, "apparently one of them had a gun." My mistake. Carry on.

[The Mad Monk]

American law, mostly (believe it or not), requires the force used to proportional to the threat. Lethal force can only be used if there was a legitimate fear of being killed yourself (using lethal force for the threat of rape just doesn't cut it).

The problem with that is, for most people who have never taken self defense training, the next step down from "lethal force" is effectively "no force".

[kentonio]

The problem with that is, for most people who have never taken self defense training, the next step down from "lethal force" is effectively "no force".

Sorry that's completely false. Most people finding themselves in a dangerous situation in the home will reach for the nearest/sharpest object to protect themselves. They may do a dreadful job of it, but they will most certainly try.

[DinoDoc]

Sorry that's completely false. Most people finding themselves in a dangerous situation in the home will reach for the nearest/sharpest object to protect themselves. They may do a dreadful job of it, but they will most certainly try.

Stabbing people seems like a decent way to kill them as well which brings us back to TMM's point.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The problem with that is, for most people who have never taken self defense training, the next step down from "lethal force" is effectively "no force".

Very true. Anyone who picks up an instrument intending it as a weapon without martial arts training is essentially a waste. Be it knife, broom handle (staff), fireplace poker, bat, or golf club (Short stick). Its a truism that practically any weapon requires training to be deadly. The defining reason why guns are the exception are range (i.e no need to close with the enemy), extreme lethality and rate of fire.

[MikeH]

Don't think guns are an exception TBH.

Well, maybe a shotgun, but without training with a handgun you are unlikely to hit anything useful especially in a high stress situation in an enclosed space where an attacker can close on you in a very small period of time.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Whereas every other weapon requires a modicum of strength and ability, the assumedly physically inferior woman in this case was able to apply deterrent force by virtue of her finely honed finger muscles.

[MikeH]

And?

My point is that if she didn't know how to use the gun properly it still probably wouldn't have helped.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And ... you don't get a gun without basic handgun safety training and a bit of practice. Far less time then say what is required as a martial artist considered proficient in a given weaponry. Particularly if one invokes the easily obtainable and previously referenced shotgun.