[Athens]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Nope. I simply understand the damaging effects that crime can have on a society. I've seen people who've been robbed scared to go out (in case they get mugged) and scared to stay in (in case they get burgled).
What kind of society is it we're creating where we don't slam down hard on the people who cause these problems? Why the hell is anyone defending the rights of these scumbags? Screw 'em!

Look at it this way... If I don't take the thief down when he does my house, is he going to end up in a situation where he's battering an old lady in the next house he breaks into?

Some of us still retain a sense of civic duty towards those less able to defend themselves.

I thank god that I live in a very safe, very clean, very social country. I pitty you.

[Athens]

Originally posted by ambush:
stop generalizing. thanks.

your still here? THought you where busy with exames and splitting up the country?

[Troll]

Did you read what you posted?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
� 167. WHERE ATTACK IS IN ONE'S OWN HOME OR DWELLING
... when a person is attacked in his own dwelling ...

Not when a person sees someone else trying to break in.

As for the Alabama code, it seems barbaric to me to equate defense of property with defense of person, but that's what I said to you right at the start. You have to decide whether you think it's okay to kill people in defense of property, mere material interests. Self-defense has nothing to do with that argument. Now Alabama appears to think that property has a higher value than life. I happen to disagree and I would think that in most circumstances where you did kill someone purely to protect property interests, that a jury wouldn't be happy. But, as a I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised in an extremely capitalist society for property rights to trump life.

[Athens]

My question to those who think its ok to Kill some one who is breaking into there house if its ok to kill a drunk driver when there is no doubt he is drunk and driving. Why, because drunk drivers kill a lot more people then people breaking into homes. Also they cost society just as much. How is it ok to kill one criminal for one act, and not another for something even more likly to hurt you like a drunk driver.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Did you read what you posted? Not when a person sees someone else trying to break in.

As for the Alabama code, it seems barbaric to me to equate defense of property with defense of person, but that's what I said to you right at the start. You have to decide whether you think it's okay to kill people in defense of property, mere material interests. Self-defense has nothing to do with that argument. Now Alabama appears to think that property has a higher value than life. I happen to disagree and I would think that in most circumstances where you did kill someone purely to protect property interests, that a jury wouldn't be happy. But, as a I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised in an extremely capitalist society for property rights to trump life.

Yes, I saw what I posted. That subheading you seem to think is important is from an ALR. It's just a practice guide published by West. I picked it out because I am not about to do a 50 state survey on this general point, but it isn't anything that a lawyer would ever cite directly.

The difference between the case summary commentary in the ALR and the Alabama statute is the difference between the general and the specific. As I indicated from the beginning, statutes like the Alabama one go further than most states' law goes. I also indicated where I personally think the right balance lies, and that is at a point short of where the Alabama legislature drew it in 1979. I'd draw the line more where most states do - at a very lenient definition of self-defense.

However, I think even that statute is more about protecting life than it seems. Law that is most disuasive is law that is the easiest to understand and predict. It draws a sharp line that criminals clearly understand they cross only at their peril. If they make the decision to break into somebody else's property for any reason, that property can be defended by the owner. A clear law like that is more likely to make them think twice than a fuzzy rule. That may be enough to avert the situation entirely.

Anyway, I think I have proven my point. You wrote: "You know as well as I do that the approach you described in the last paragraph is not the law!". Well, actually it is.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Anyway, I think I have proven my point. You wrote: "You know as well as I do that the approach you described in the last paragraph is not the law!". Well, actually it is.

I don't think you've proved your point.

If a guy is standing outside pointing a gun into the window, then I can see your point about the warning. That's more serious than a burglary though. Warning him might give away your position in that case. If he's busy sawing through your burglar bars and you don't even know if he has a gun, how would saying, "Oy, what are you doing endanger your life?" If you do say that and the guy keeps on sawing, or if he threatens you, then its reasonable to think he's going to hurt you when he gets in. If it's your house, then you normally don't have to run away and you could shoot him.

BUT, shooting the guy before you warn him? I don't think you're going to get away with that. Not even in Alabama. The fact that he's breaking in isn't enough. Self-defence requires a reasonable threat of physical force. You would need to prove not only that he was breaking in but ALSO that you reasonably believed that he was going to physically harm you. How are you going to prove that that he wouldn't have run away and never harmed you if you'd warned him? I don't think a jury would think it's reasonable to believe that the guy intended to harm you rather than steal your television. So anyone taking legal advice from Simey, please don't think you can shoot people trying to break into your home. You will more than likely go to jail for a very long time. Even in Alabama.

I had a look at the Alabama statute and it does not allow you to use deadly force to protect your property. It allows you to kill a burglar only where they are already using physical force against you or you reasonably believe that they are about to use physical force against you.

Section 13A-3-23
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) ... A person may use deadly physical force if the actor reasonably believes that such other person is:

...

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling;

[BRussell]

Here's my state's law on this, FWIW.

When a person is in the house:

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure. However, he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
_____(1) the entry is made or attempted in violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon or offer of personal violence to him or another then in the occupied structure; or
_____(2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

and when a person isn't in the house:

45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than an occupied structure) or personal property lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It looks like you can use deadly force to prevent a "forcible felony" which means "any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Right. The trick to reading those statutes though is the magic word "reasonably" in "reasonably believes." That's known as the objective person test. Reasonably means a reasonable person of average prudence and temprament in like circumstances (as decided by the jury).

That means that Troll's statistics really don't play a role because an average person faced with an intruder would be thinking about his safety, not about statistics. A jury is quite likely to agree with that proposition. On the other hand, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude someone running away is a threat even if the particular homeowner is unusually frightened by the experience.

On top of all this is the point that seems to have been lost that for any of these legal standards to have effect there has to actually be a prosecution of the homeowner. I think in many or even most cases, there wouldn't be one because the prosecutor would use his considerable discretion and drop the case.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Athens:
I thank god that I live in a very safe, very clean, very social country. I pitty you.

"As of Thursday, Vancouver had recorded 113 robberies at financial institutions this year.

Paul Griffin, Western Canada director of the the Canadian Bankers Association, said Vancouver has been the bank robbery capital of Canada for several years

http://www.vancourier.com/issues03/1...111103nn2.html

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Right. The trick to reading those statutes though is the magic word "reasonably" in "reasonably believes." That's known as the objective person test. Reasonably means a reasonable person of average prudence and temprament in like circumstances (as decided by the jury).

Nice dodge. The point is that it is not legal to just shoot a person who's breaking in - even in Alabama. You can only shoot them if they are breaking in AND you reasonably believe that they are going to inflict physical harm on you when they do get in. If you don't actually believe it but you're hoping a prosecutor or a jury will think it was reasonable, you're taking a huge risk.

I think it's very irresponsible of you to be giving the kind of legal opinions you are giving here. A lot of people will read what you've written and think they can shoot anyone trying to break into their house without any warning at all. That is not what the law says.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
On top of all this is the point that seems to have been lost that for any of these legal standards to have effect there has to actually be a prosecution of the homeowner. I think in many or even most cases, there wouldn't be one because the prosecutor would use his considerable discretion and drop the case.

This is the sort of advice you get in the bar over a few drinks from an arm wrestler. That's not the kind of thing you expect from a budding lawyer.

Let me tell you a little story. A guy I used to work with named Tony witnessed a hit and run and chased the guy down. Tony managed to stop the car and the driver plead innocence. Tony grabbed the driver, conducted a citizen's arrest and called the cops on his mobile. Before they got there, the guy struggled and shoved Tony apparently as if he was trying to get away. There are different versions of what happened next but it ended up with Tony shooting and killing an unarmed man. Tony's mates all told him precisely what Simey is sayin here, "Nothing will happen, mate. You were doing the cops job for them. The prosecutor will drop it." Even the cops told him he'd get away with it. And they may have been right except that then a local newspaper picked up the story and implied that racism was involved. With the attention on the case, the cops were obliged to press charges. The court found the use of force unjustified, decided to make an example of this vigilante (the press attention didn't help Tony) and he got 15 years. He's served 2 of them so far.

Be careful is all I'm saying. Just because the other guy is in the wrong, doesn't mean that you can't put yourself in the wrong by acting stupidly. Obviously, if you can't avoid the conflict, do whatever you have to to protect yourself, but don't go shooting people unless it's the only option available to you to prevent imminent harm to yourself.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Troll:
A lot of people will read what you've written and think they can shoot anyone trying to break into their house without any warning at all.

I didn't see anything about warnings in either statute posted here. Granted, we're talking about the wild west and the deep south, so other states may have that kind of restriction. But in Montana and Alabama, it looks like if you think someone is breaking in to harm you, you can hide in the shadows and shoot them.

Anyway, have you heard of this case? (I couldn't find a very good link.)

On Oct. 17, 1992, Yoshi and Webb were on their way to a Halloween party.

Yoshi, who studied jazz and tap dance after school, wore a white tuxedo and a ruffled shirt; he was John Travolta from "Saturday Night Fever." Webb, who had been in a car accident and wore a neck brace, added to the "accident victim" costume by bandaging his head.

They knocked at the wrong house. When nobody answered, they began to walk away, according to news accounts.

But when a man appeared at the door, Yoshi started back, smiling and waving. He may have thought the people were playing a Halloween prank, Webb said later. He may have thought the .44 magnum handgun pointed at him was a toy.

"Freeze!" the man said, but Yoshi didn't understand that use of the word and kept advancing. The man fired one shot, hitting Yoshi in the chest, and Yoshi fell to the ground. Webb ran to him. "What happened?" Yoshi asked. He died a short time later.

The man who shot Yoshi told police that he thought he was defending his home and family. He was charged with manslaughter but was found not guilty.

I believe they sued the shooter and won a wrongful death case.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:

I had a look at the Alabama statute and it does not allow you to use deadly force to protect your property. It allows you to kill a burglar only where they are already using physical force against you or you reasonably believe that they are about to use physical force against you.

Troll: this is from the commentary to Ala. Code Sec. 13A-3-23:

However, under the 1979 amendment a person may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes (threat may be apparent, though not real) another is "committing or about to commit" a burglary "in any degree" (not limited to dwelling). Also, the 1979 legislature broadened the scope of burglary in the third degree to cover the entering or remaining unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime (Acts 1979, No. 471, � 2612). Section 13A-7-7. This is a substantial departure from traditional law as there are varying factual situations where a person may be technically trespassing in a building (remains unlawfully) with the intent to commit some kind of crime (misdemeanor or felony) that is not life-endangering or even serious; but under the literal wording of this section the owner may kill him.

The commentary obviously isn't the law, but it is based on the statute, case law, and (if there is any), the legislative history. It's probably a pretty trustworthy statement of how the statute is actually applied.

The code section itself deliniates the situations were deadly physical force can be used in self-defense in Alabama. The code text is.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force if the actor reasonably believes that such other person is:



(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling; or

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape or forcible sodomy.



(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if it reasonably appears or he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety:



(1) By retreating, except that the actor is not required to retreat:

a. If he is in his dwelling or at his place of work and was not the original aggressor; or

b. If he is a peace officer or a private person lawfully assisting a peace officer at his direction.

(2), (3) Repealed by Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, � 1.



(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:



(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person; or

(2) He was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

So yes, you can use deadly force against anyone committing burglary in any degree, unless you provoked the incident (all measured by an objective person test). Notice also that the statute dispenses with the common law duty to retreat that many states have if you are in your own home.

Case law is fairly thin, but here are a couple of cases. Lemley v. State, 599 So.2d 64 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992) The case was reversed for failure to instruct jury on self defense. Factually, the case doesn't involve a burglary, but the homeowner said he thought his life was in danger, so he shot at some kids shooting squirrels in his back yard. The reversal issue is whether he reasonably felt he was in danger from the pellet gun.

In Ex Parte Lacy, 629 So.2d 691 (Ala. 1993) the Alabama Supreme Court denied cert. Justice Almon dissented, and gave a nice description of the principles, although he said the record was thin in that case. Apparently, the jury aquitted the defendant of murder, but wasn't given a self-defense instruction for a lesser included charge of manslaughter. According to Justice Almon, the aquittal on murder for justified self-defense should have resulted in an aquittal of any charge.

[dcolton]

Moral of the story, stay off private property unless you are invited.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Nice dodge. The point is that it is not legal to just shoot a person who's breaking in - even in Alabama.

No dodge, see above. Don't you have the same reasonable person standard in other common law jurisdictions? I would think it is identical.

I think it's very irresponsible of you to be giving the kind of legal opinions you are giving here. A lot of people will read what you've written and think they can shoot anyone trying to break into their house without any warning at all. That is not what the law says.
This is the sort of advice you get in the bar over a few drinks from an arm wrestler. That's not the kind of thing you expect from a budding lawyer.

Oh give me a break. I'm not giving particularized advice to anybody. I'm still free to discuss the law notwithstanding the fact I'm a "budding lawyer."

[Athens]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"As of Thursday, Vancouver had recorded 113 robberies at financial institutions this year.

Paul Griffin, Western Canada director of the the Canadian Bankers Association, said Vancouver has been the bank robbery capital of Canada for several years

http://www.vancourier.com/issues03/1...111103nn2.html

113 and not a single person hurt. Go look at Seattles Bank Robberies. Just because its the highest in Canada dosent mean its bad. There has got to be 10 000 bank branchs in the Lower Mainland GVRD.

[goMac]

Wow. Only 113? I can think of 3 alone in the tiny tiny suburb of Seattle I live in (and we only have two banks), probably 10 in the general area. Hell, some crazy lady shot the manager of our local grocery store over some food.

Anyway, you guys miss the point. The point is having a gun increases your chances of dying. If you try to pull a gun on a criminal, you will get shot. If everyone starts the own guns, criminals will simply assume you are armed and shoot you on sight. Criminals won't simply shoot someone for no reason. Perhaps robbery they can get away with, but murder is harder to get away from. And if they are caught, they know they are in much more trouble. They'd rather take your stuff and go without any more trouble.

Personally I value my own life much more than any of my processions. I'd rather let someone take my stuff than risk my life. Let the police risk their lives to go after the criminal, and let my insurance buy my stuff back. Thats what I pay both to do.

[finboy]

Originally posted by goMac:

Personally I value my own life much more than any of my processions. I'd rather let someone take my stuff than risk my life. Let the police risk their lives to go after the criminal, and let my insurance buy my stuff back. Thats what I pay both to do.

In the meantime, those of us who bear the risk and expense of owning guns will continue to make the world safer for you.

You're welcome.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Athens:
Cowboys (Americans) are just to gunho. They prefer to shoot or be shot at.

I don't agree. So far, especially from Sherwin's posts, the issue is the protection of your property, your land, and your life.

There is also another issue underneath that leads me to understand that in America, many people hold their possession closely to their own pride, their sense of self-accomplishment, etc. Therefore, it would be easy to jump to a conclusion that for many Americans sharing this close relationship between self and belongings, any attempts to interfere or diminish their relationship can correspond to a maximum threat, therefore justifying the use of "proportional response".

Name calling covers the importance of understanding someone else's culture and I think that would be a mistake.

[goMac]

Originally posted by finboy:
In the meantime, those of us who bear the risk and expense of owning guns will continue to make the world safer for you.

You're welcome.

I don't expect you to do anything for me. Thats the job of the police. Criminals only carry guns because they think the person they are robbing might have one. So you're the reason criminals have guns. Robbers don't want to kill people, they have no reason to. The only reason they have a gun is because they are worried they might get shot during the robbery.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"As of Thursday, Vancouver had recorded 113 robberies at financial institutions this year.

Paul Griffin, Western Canada director of the the Canadian Bankers Association, said Vancouver has been the bank robbery capital of Canada for several years

http://www.vancourier.com/issues03/1...111103nn2.html

Vancouver is also one of the cities where drug problems are very important. IIRC, it was also called the "crack capital". Things got increasingly difficult in the last 15 years, especially since 1999.

[goMac]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Vancouver is also one of the cities where drug problems are very important. IIRC, it was also called the "crack capital". Things got increasingly difficult in the last 15 years, especially since 1999.

What does drugs have to do with guns?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by goMac:
I don't expect you to do anything for me. Thats the job of the police. Criminals only carry guns because they think the person they are robbing might have one. So you're the reason criminals have guns. Robbers don't want to kill people, they have no reason to. The only reason they have a gun is because they are worried they might get shot during the robbery.

Or alternatively, criminals carry guns because they know if they have one, and you do not, they have the advantage. Or because they just like to feel powerful. Or because they are jerks. It could be all of the above. But they idea that they wouldn't carry guns if citizens didn't have them is just dumb. It's not criminals who are worrying about levelling the playing field against their victims, it's their victims worrying about levelling the playing field against the criminals.

New York City and Washington, DC banned handguns altogether. Law abiding citizens can't have them. Nevertheless, the criminal population did not disarm. Why would they? The law gives them the advantage.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... It's not criminals who are worrying about leveling the playing field against their victims, it's their victims worrying about leveling the playing field against the criminals....

that's exactly it though. it's all about the 'social climate' and how 'acceptable' it is to use guns.

of course i don't think there is any society in the world where (especially criminals) completely abstain from using firearms.
yet, i think especially in the us, guns are much too prolific and in the end do more potential harm than good.

a lot of times though, it's the criminals who are worried about 'leveling' the playing field against other criminals.

[goMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Or alternatively, criminals carry guns because they know if they have one, and you do not, they have the advantage. Or because they just like to feel powerful. Or because they are jerks. It could be all of the above. But they idea that they wouldn't carry guns if citizens didn't have them is just dumb. It's not criminals who are worrying about levelling the playing field against their victims, it's their victims worrying about levelling the playing field against the criminals.

New York City and Washington, DC banned handguns altogether. Law abiding citizens can't have them. Nevertheless, the criminal population did not disarm. Why would they? The law gives them the advantage.

And why would criminals want to kill someone in a robbery? It's one thing if they are caught for robbery. It is a completely different thing if they are caught for murder.

The point is even if a criminal has a gun, they are not very likely at all to fire it at you. The only reason they would ever fire it at you is IF YOU HAD A GUN.

[BRussell]

One thing's for sure: Having lots of guns doesn't seem to have made us a safe or non-violent country. Even if you look regionally within the US, the places with the most violent crime, the south, also have the most guns. They are also far more likely to use the death penalty than other places, and in general have more of a tough anti-crime stance. Obviously something isn't working.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by goMac:
Personally I value my own life much more than any of my processions. I'd rather let someone take my stuff than risk my life. Let the police risk their lives to go after the criminal, and let my insurance buy my stuff back. Thats what I pay both to do.

Originally posted by finboy:
In the meantime, those of us who bear the risk and expense of owning guns will continue to make the world safer for you.

You're welcome.

Umm, where is the connection between goMac's post and yours, finboy?

goMac is advocating giving up personal possession's when confronted by a robber and you are claming that by owning guns you are making the world a safer place to live for peoply like goMac.

But there is no correspondence between what he is posting and what you posted. You two are talking about two completely different matters. So, what point was it you are trying to make?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by goMac:
What does drugs have to do with guns?

More drugs means more addiction. Greater addiction means more drugs. More drugs means "need more money to buy drugs".

More money to buy drugs means "get more money from somewhere to buy drugs".

The moneytrees being extinct for awhile, that leaves jobs, social assistance, or robbery.

Robbery means crime. Big robberies mean big crime. Sometimes, some small robberies means big crime in small heads requiring lots of dope because of big addiction. (Because some big addiction make heads smaller than before addiction).

Therefore, more drugs means guns.

Any policeman could probably tell you without a doubt that the traffic of drugs involves, at some point, the traffic of weapons.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
One thing's for sure: Having lots of guns doesn't seem to have made us a safe or non-violent country. Even if you look regionally within the US, the places with the most violent crime, the south, also have the most guns.

I think that is simplistic at best. Many non-southern cities lead the country in violent crime. Chicago, Detroit, Boston, LA, Washington, DC, Boston, and Camden, NJ all come to mind. They aren't in the south, and several of them have very restrictive gun laws. Of course, some southern cities also have quite a bit of crime.

Violent crime isn't uniquely a problem of the south, but it is strongly correlated to dense urban areas. Once you get out of the cities, things get a lot safer quick. Strangely enough, if you recall those county by county maps that we looked at after the election, those same areas also seem to be correlated with strongly Democratic voters. Now, if we assume that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support gun restrictions, and less likely than Republicans to support the death penalty, you could make a strong argument that those are the positions that are wrong. Conversely, the most heavily Republican parts of the map -- rural and suburban counties, also seem to be the safest places to be.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by goMac:
And why would criminals want to kill someone in a robbery?

They might not plan to kill you in a robbery. They might just plan to use the gun to scare you. Or they might just plan to use it to make you (or your family) submit to being raped. But they might get scared half way through and shoot you out of panic. Criminals in the midst of a crime probably aren't the most rational thinkers on Earth. And that's assuming they aren't high on drugs at the time.

There is also the kind of cold blooded rational reason I described earlier in the thread:

There was a triple homicide that happened half a mile from where I had an apartment last year. The robbers tied up three dishwashers in a restaurant, stole $3000 from the cash register, then turned to their helpless victims and shot each of them in the back of the head. Why did they do that? They later told the police they executed the staff because they feared they would identify them to the police if they let them live. Link (though not a great one).

If you think that criminals only kill victims who fight back, you are awfully naive.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think that is simplistic at best. Many non-southern cities lead the country in violent crime. Chicago, Detroit, Boston, LA, Washington, DC, Boston, and Camden, NJ all come to mind. They aren't in the south, and several of them have very restrictive gun laws. Of course, some southern cities also have quite a bit of crime.

Violent crime isn't uniquely a problem of the south, but it is strongly correlated to dense urban areas. Once you get out of the cities, things get a lot safer quick. Strangely enough, if you recall those county by county maps that we looked at after the election, those same areas also seem to be correlated with strongly Democratic voters. Now, if we assume that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support gun restrictions, and less likely than Republicans to support the death penalty, you could make a strong argument that those are the positions that are wrong. Conversely, the most heavily Republican parts of the map -- rural and suburban counties, also seem to be the safest places to be.

It may be simplistic, but it's also one of the most interesting criminological/sociological issues in the US. Why is the South more violent than other regions? Is it guns? Is it due to the greater racial mixture? A culture of honor? Your rural-urban distinction, while true nationally, is a separate issue because 1) it doesn't explain the difference between the South and the rest of the country, and 2) it doesn't hold in the South - violent crime rates are roughly equal in rural and urban areas in the south, unlike the rest of the country. You're not going to get safer if you go from a city to a rural area in the South like you would in, say, the midwest.

[goMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They might not plan to kill you in a robbery. They might just plan to use the gun to scare you. Or they might just plan to use it to make you (or your family) submit to being raped. But they might get scared half way through and shoot you out of panic. Criminals in the midst of a crime probably aren't the most rational thinkers on Earth. And that's assuming they aren't high on drugs at the time.

There is also the kind of cold blooded rational reason I described earlier in the thread:

There was a triple homicide that happened half a mile from where I had an apartment last year. The robbers tied up three dishwashers in a restaurant, stole $3000 from the cash register, then turned to their helpless victims and shot each of them in the back of the head. Why did they do that? They later told the police they executed the staff because they feared they would identify them to the police if they let them live. Link (though not a great one).

If you think that criminals only kill victims who fight back, you are awfully naive.

Once you pull out that gun, there is a 50/50 chance your dead. either you're going to shoot the robber or the robber is going to shoot you. I would much rather not take that chance, and just hand over my stuff rather than endanger my life. My Powerbook/money/home is not worth endangering my life over.

And if the criminal isn't rational, they're probably going to shoot you before you even see them.

And better yet, if they really want to rape your family or whatever, they'll assume the worst and assume you have a gun. So they'll just find a better gun than they think you have. And thats what your left with. Both sides keep arming themselves with more and more, and you never really get any safer because the criminals just keep getting better weapons than you. If citizens didn't have guns, people breaking and entering would have no reason to have guns. Lets face it, as sad as it is if some freak wants to get in and rape your family, he will arm himself better than you, and you will end up dead. And even so, what idiot breaks into someone's own home to rape someone?

You come off sounding extremely paranoid. Robberies are common, yes. People breaking into homes to rape someone is not. Statistically, someone in your family probably has a better chance of getting killed by your own gun.

You have a better chance of surviving a robbery by cooperating then pulling a gun. It's that simple any way you look at it.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by goMac:
Once you pull out that gun, there is a 50/50 chance your dead. either you're going to shoot the robber or the robber is going to shoot you. I would much rather not take that chance, and just hand over my stuff rather than endanger my life. My Powerbook/money/home is not worth endangering my life over.

And if the criminal isn't rational, they're probably going to shoot you before you even see them.

And better yet, if they really want to rape your family or whatever, they'll assume the worst and assume you have a gun. So they'll just find a better gun than they think you have. And thats what your left with. Both sides keep arming themselves with more and more, and you never really get any safer because the criminals just keep getting better weapons than you. If citizens didn't have guns, people breaking and entering would have no reason to have guns. Lets face it, as sad as it is if some freak wants to get in and rape your family, he will arm himself better than you, and you will end up dead. And even so, what idiot breaks into someone's own home to rape someone?

You come off sounding extremely paranoid. Robberies are common, yes. People breaking into homes to rape someone is not. Statistically, someone in your family probably has a better chance of getting killed by your own gun.

You have a better chance of surviving a robbery by cooperating then pulling a gun. It's that simple any way you look at it.

I don't get it. You guys are just going to roll over to them?

[goMac]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
I don't get it. You guys are just going to roll over to them?

With the alternative possibly getting shot and possibly dying? Gladly. My life is worth more than my stuff. I'd just get new stuff through my insurance.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by goMac:
With the alternative possibly getting shot and possibly dying? Gladly. My life is worth more than my stuff. I'd just get new stuff through my insurance.

It's your home. It's your castle. You don't let street trash prance on in and take stuff at their pleasing. Now, if you were a criminal, would you go back to a house where a man pulled out a gun on you? After all, he could have been shot.

With the alternative of possibly getting shot and possibly dying? Gladly. My life is worth more than that guy's stuff. I'd just go to another house.

[goMac]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
It's your home. It's your castle. You don't let street trash prance on in and take stuff at their pleasing. Now, if you were a criminal, would you go back to a house where a man pulled out a gun on you? After all, he could have been shot.

With the alternative of possibly getting shot and possibly dying? Gladly. My life is worth more than that guy's stuff. I'd just go to another house.

My life is worth far more than my pride. You just sound silly. I'll gladly take wounded pride over endangering my life. Almost all robbers would rather not shoot anyone. They just take a gun to protect themselves against you. If you don't try to pull a gun on them, chances are very good they won't try and shoot you. If you DO pull a gun, chances are VERY GOOD they will try to shoot you.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by goMac:
My life is worth far more than my pride. You just sound silly. I'll gladly take wounded pride over endangering my life. Almost all robbers would rather not shoot anyone. They just take a gun to protect themselves against you. If you don't try to pull a gun on them, chances are very good they won't try and shoot you. If you DO pull a gun, chances are VERY GOOD they will try to shoot you.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by goMac:
With the alternative possibly getting shot and possibly dying? Gladly. My life is worth more than my stuff. I'd just get new stuff through my insurance.

I own quite a few things that can't be replaced with insurance.

Also, I guarantee I'm a better shot than any punk idiot who would try and break into my home. Of course, I do warn them. I have one sign posted on my driveway that reads, "Forget the dog, beware of owner" and shows a nice business-end graphic of a pistol. That's probably enough of a detterent for most people.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I have one sign posted on my driveway that reads, "Forget the dog, beware of owner" and shows a nice business-end graphic of a pistol.

You have a sign in front of your house with a gun? So when girl scouts come to your house with their cookies, they see a gun pointing at them?

[Athens]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I own quite a few things that can't be replaced with insurance.

Also, I guarantee I'm a better shot than any punk idiot who would try and break into my home. Of course, I do warn them. I have one sign posted on my driveway that reads, "Forget the dog, beware of owner" and shows a nice business-end graphic of a pistol. That's probably enough of a detterent for most people.

In the end it really depends where you live. Im sure if I lived in a American City that had LOTS of BNE's I might even get one. But in the end if im Robbed and had a gun in the house, I really doubt I would have a chance to use it anyways. Guess its what ever makes a person FEEL safe. For me, I don't need to be armed in any way to feel safe, which is probably why I can't understand why others are so intent on having a gun.

[goMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I own quite a few things that can't be replaced with insurance.

Also, I guarantee I'm a better shot than any punk idiot who would try and break into my home. Of course, I do warn them. I have one sign posted on my driveway that reads, "Forget the dog, beware of owner" and shows a nice business-end graphic of a pistol. That's probably enough of a detterent for most people.

That sounds entirely silly. A) Out of all the things that can't be replaced by my insurance, I know my life is the biggest one. I would gladly lose some irreplaceable memento than my life. Hell, that stuff could be destroyed at any time by and Earthquake/Flood/Fire. I can't imagine what you do about those things if you're that obsessed about your stuff. Do you arm yourself with guns against natural disasters too so they don't take your stuff? There are things that can't be replaced by insurance. Accept that they could be destroyed or disappear at any time. B) Don't assume you're better with a gun than anyone who enters your home. Thats just pure ignorance. And I guarantee no one is scared of your sign. People probably find it funny, and it just means whoever breaks into your house will know you have a gun. You're not scaring anyone away, you're just making them know they need to be prepared a bring weapons when they break in. And hey... if you show your paranoid enough, maybe those punk idiots will think of you as a better target just to piss you off.

Boy.... we should start posting signs on our national monuments. THAT will stop terrorism. "Beware of owner..."

[Spliffdaddy]

lol.

misguided.

[SimpleLife]

This debate is not very useful. Clearly it is a cultural issue that will not change overnight except from a major shift in thinking amongst the population of the U.S.

That will happen in due time if ever.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It may be simplistic, but it's also one of the most interesting criminological/sociological issues in the US. Why is the South more violent than other regions? Is it guns? Is it due to the greater racial mixture? A culture of honor? Your rural-urban distinction, while true nationally, is a separate issue because 1) it doesn't explain the difference between the South and the rest of the country, and 2) it doesn't hold in the South - violent crime rates are roughly equal in rural and urban areas in the south, unlike the rest of the country. You're not going to get safer if you go from a city to a rural area in the South like you would in, say, the midwest.

I was being polite when I said simplistic. Actually, you are simply wrong. The south isn't where violent crime is most prevelant. Not unless cities like Detroit are suddenly in the South.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by goMac:
Once you pull out that gun, there is a 50/50 chance your dead. either you're going to shoot the robber or the robber is going to shoot you. I would much rather not take that chance, and just hand over my stuff rather than endanger my life. My Powerbook/money/home is not worth endangering my life over.

And if the criminal isn't rational, they're probably going to shoot you before you even see them.

And better yet, if they really want to rape your family or whatever, they'll assume the worst and assume you have a gun. So they'll just find a better gun than they think you have. And thats what your left with. Both sides keep arming themselves with more and more, and you never really get any safer because the criminals just keep getting better weapons than you. If citizens didn't have guns, people breaking and entering would have no reason to have guns. Lets face it, as sad as it is if some freak wants to get in and rape your family, he will arm himself better than you, and you will end up dead. And even so, what idiot breaks into someone's own home to rape someone?

You come off sounding extremely paranoid. Robberies are common, yes. People breaking into homes to rape someone is not. Statistically, someone in your family probably has a better chance of getting killed by your own gun.

You have a better chance of surviving a robbery by cooperating then pulling a gun. It's that simple any way you look at it.

I'm not paranoid at all. I don't personally own a gun, because I now live in a nice safe sburb where I don't (at least at the moment) feel that one is necessary. What I can't stand is the stupid arguments raised in favor of the naive idea that if you just disarm citizens, criminals will put their guns away.

For example, your idea about better guns. Actually, to a large extent, a gun is a gun is a gun. A $50 Saturday night special will do just as well as a $700 Beretta, which criminals well know. If I were to get a gun i would prefer to get the more expensive one because of the better safety mechanism, etc. But to a criminal on a crime spree it would make very little difference. We aren't talking long distances where accuracy is an issue. So any gun would do equally.

Your "Once you pull out that gun, there is a 50/50 chance your dead" idea is equally silly. We aren't talking about organized duels where the situation is carefully made even. There may be some situations where the burglar will get the drop on the homeowner, but I don't think anybody has suggested that guns will be 100% effective in every situation. However, in most situations, the homeowner probably has the advantage. In military terms, a person defending a building has at least a 3:1 advantage over a person entering it. The reasons are multiple, but for example, a person climbing in through a window is off balance, awkward, and perhaps most importantly silhouetted against the light. In other words, he's an easy target. The same issue arises any time someone goes from the periphery of a building to the core. The homeowner also has the advantage of cover and knowing the layout. This is why soldiers and cops dread clearing buildings.

And finally, we get the same tired arguments that have been raised over and over in this thread. Those are arguments about statistics. Of course, gunowners know the odds are against them ever needing their weapon. Just like house alarms, insurance, seatbelts, airbags, and many other things, guns are bought for the statistically unlikely occurance. And as for whether they place the family in more danger, that depends very much on the individual family. For example, my household has no kids. So all those statistics about children capping themselves would be meaningless.

And you are ignoring also the primary reason that has been raised to argue in favor of allowing people to own guns for home protection -- to deter criminals from even attempting the idea because they do not know whether they will be met my a compliant victim who will hand him his wallet, or a determined citizen who will shoot at him.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not paranoid at all. I don't personally own a gun, because I now live in a nice safe sburb where I don't (at least at the moment) feel that one is necessary. What I can't stand is the stupid arguments raised in favor of the naive idea that if you just disarm citizens, criminals will put their guns away.

Canada dosent disarm there citizens, most Canadians choose not to have guns. And most criminals dont use guns or use fake guns.

For example, your idea about better guns. Actually, to a large extent, a gun is a gun is a gun. A $50 Saturday night special will do just as well as a $700 Beretta, which criminals well know. If I were to get a gun i would prefer to get the more expensive one because of the better safety mechanism, etc. But to a criminal on a crime spree it would make very little difference. We aren't talking long distances where accuracy is an issue. So any gun would do equally.

Unless they get a fully automatic machine gun and can just spray out bullets, even a bad shot has a good chance at hitting you.

Your "Once you pull out that gun, there is a 50/50 chance your dead" idea is equally silly. We aren't talking about organized duels where the situation is carefully made even. There may be some situations where the burglar will get the drop on the homeowner, but I don't think anybody has suggested that guns will be 100% effective in every situation. However, in most situations, the homeowner probably has the advantage. In military terms, a person defending a building has at least a 3:1 advantage over a person entering it. The reasons are multiple, but for example, a person climbing in through a window is off balance, awkward, and perhaps most importantly silhouetted against the light. In other words, he's an easy target. The same issue arises any time someone goes from the periphery of a building to the core. The homeowner also has the advantage of cover and knowing the layout. This is why soldiers and cops dread clearing buildings.

I dont know how home invasions work in the US, but here most of the time they just walk up to the front door and knock. Once you open it they force there way in. Unless you are armed when you answer that door chances are you are out of luck doing anything about it. In the case of some one just looking to rob you, if you are home they wont bother. And most home invasions here are usally more then one person, usally 2 or 3 people.

And you are ignoring also the primary reason that has been raised to argue in favor of allowing people to own guns for home protection -- to deter criminals from even attempting the idea because they do not know whether they will be met my a compliant victim who will hand him his wallet, or a determined citizen who will shoot at him.

Interesting Argument but again I don't agree. Look at the difference between Canada and the US. Americans are very well known for being armed. Canadians are very well known for being unarmed. There are way more gun deaths in the US, way more robberies, break-ins in the US then in Canada. And for the most part criminals in the US mostly have real guns while most Canadian criminals are using fake guns. By your logic then Canada should have the worse problem and the US should have the lessor problem.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by goMac:
That sounds entirely silly. A) Out of all the things that can't be replaced by my insurance, I know my life is the biggest one. I would gladly lose some irreplaceable memento than my life. Hell, that stuff could be destroyed at any time by and Earthquake/Flood/Fire. I can't imagine what you do about those things if you're that obsessed about your stuff. Do you arm yourself with guns against natural disasters too so they don't take your stuff? There are things that can't be replaced by insurance. Accept that they could be destroyed or disappear at any time. B) Don't assume you're better with a gun than anyone who enters your home. Thats just pure ignorance. And I guarantee no one is scared of your sign. People probably find it funny, and it just means whoever breaks into your house will know you have a gun. You're not scaring anyone away, you're just making them know they need to be prepared a bring weapons when they break in. And hey... if you show your paranoid enough, maybe those punk idiots will think of you as a better target just to piss you off.

Boy.... we should start posting signs on our national monuments. THAT will stop terrorism. "Beware of owner..."

Two years ago there were a rash of burglaries in this area. Everyone around me who didn't own guns and didn't have signs, were robbed. Coincidence? I sincerely doubt it. Why? Because a robber will go for the easy mark. It's much like nature, where the weaker herd animal will get picked off by predators, and the stronger more capable animals are rarely bothered. It's just common sense.

And yes, I am better with a gun than they are. Hell, I'm better with a gun than everyone in my city's police dept. I know, I target practice with them.

Armed against natural disasters? Nice straw-man you have there.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You have a sign in front of your house with a gun? So when girl scouts come to your house with their cookies, they see a gun pointing at them?

It's posted along my driveway (which is about a 1/4 mile long). Actually, I have 3 signs posted at different points. The first reads, "No Trespassing", the second, "No Soliciting", the third, "Forget the dog, beware of owner" (and has afore mentioned gun graphic). So, no, I don't get very many girl scouts peddling cookies. The only people who usually brave the signs are the JWs and Mormons, but they're usually fun to talk to, so I don't mind.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I was being polite when I said simplistic. Actually, you are simply wrong. The south isn't where violent crime is most prevelant. Not unless cities like Detroit are suddenly in the South.

What is this, argument by reassertion? Yes, there is a rural-urban divide in violent crime rates. No, that doesn't refute the fact that the South is the region of the US with the highest violent crime rate. It also doesn't refute the fact that the rural-urban divide doesn't occur in the South.

Ugh, I've just been Simey-ed again. I don't blame you, it's my fault really. Fool me once, and all that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What is this, argument by reassertion? Yes, there is a rural-urban divide in violent crime rates. No, that doesn't refute the fact that the South is the region of the US with the highest violent crime rate. It also doesn't refute the fact that the rural-urban divide doesn't occur in the South.

Rubbish. Chicago is the US murder capital. Link Other top murder cities include St. Louis, Detroit, New York and Washington, DC.

[SimpleLife]

Somehow, I figure the FBI may have something interesting to say about this.