An Englishman's home is his castle : Who said British Justice is a shambles ?

[AtW]

If Russia was so wonderful why did you leave?

Many reasons,

If you choose to live here accept that democracy means that the majority prefer not to carry firearms - this was true when they were legal.

I accept democracy, so I don't carry illegal firearms. This does not however mean I should abandom my views that are successfully implemented in France, Germany, Swissland, USA and many other democratic countries.

Just because I think people (responsible well trained citizens) should have right to bear arms does not mean that people who disagree with me (like you) should be shot or should leave the country - on the other hand I expect the same from those who disagree with me.

Of course we could legalise firearms like the USA for example, but would undoubtedly result in a much higher murder rate, just like they have there.

Firearms were banned big time under Nu Liebor - gun crimes actually gone up, doubled I think.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

er..
I think he knows that PSB. But they have the upper hand now. At least if everyone had guns it would even the odds. That would be a deterrant
Thats his argument

It's flawed thinking - criminals will always have the "upper hand" - they don't feel bound by our rules, that's why they are criminals. If I have a gun it ain't going to make johnny robber think twice and decide to become a model citizen, it'll just make him ensure he's more armed to the teeth than me - and he'll be more reckless and have less to lose than me anyway.

[AtW]

If I have a gun it ain't going to make johnny robber think twice

No, he might not think twice, so he'd get shot dead after a few robberies, sounds fine by me. A few good citizens who have chosen to bear arms might be unsuccessful in stopping him, this is sad but it would be their own choice to die fighting.

[Board Game Geek]

Visting Penn State to see a an American co-worker some years back (ex-Marine), he told me about the law with regards to guns and protection of self and property.

I grabbed the quote from a net source.

"PA’s gun laws have been summarized as having a “your home is your castle” mentality.

The laws allow for increased protection in your own home.

For example, if you get mugged or assaulted walking down Third Street, the law says that you must first either give them whatever they want or attempt to run away.

If neither can be safely done, or if the threat of death, bodily harm, or sexual assault is clear and imminent, and none of the exceptions apply (such as, among other things, you being the instigator), THEN the use of deadly force MAY POSSIBLY be justified.

On the other hand, if an unwelcome intruder kicks down the door to your home at 3am, the law takes your side on defending yourself."

I said, surely in the case of home intrusion, most if not all burglars would go armed for the job, thus the playing field is level.

He laughed and said "What burglars ?"

I asked him to explain.

He said, "The law is on the side of the homeower. As soon as they cross that threshold uninvited, and with criminal intent, I am allowed to use deadly force, with no warning, up to and including shooting them in the back as they try to run away."

"The only burglars are either stupid ones, or dead ones".

Seems to work for them.

[EternalOptimist]

i wanna move to PA and get me a BAZOOKA

[AtW]

For example, if you get mugged or assaulted walking down Third Street, the law says that you must first either give them whatever they want or attempt to run away.

If neither can be safely done, or if the threat of death, bodily harm, or sexual assault is clear and imminent, and none of the exceptions apply (such as, among other things, you being the instigator), THEN the use of deadly force MAY POSSIBLY be justified.

That's pretty reasonable.

It is easy to prove that some intruder was on property of house owner (or renter!), harder if it's on the street - you don't want some guy give easy way to shoot someone else and try to claim they verbally tried to mug them.

USA have got a lot of experience in such laws that work pretty well - it's high time to pick some of their best experienced. This can help reduce crime bill also and raise some tax money (weapon manufacturing is cheap).

Some people won't like it - they are entitled to their views and should not be buying any weapons. Just don't try to break at other people's houses - it will cost more than it's worth.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

No, he might not think twice, so he'd get shot dead after a few robberies, sounds fine by me. A few good citizens who have chosen to bear arms might be unsuccessful in stopping him, this is sad but it would be their own choice to die fighting.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion - but I believe your logic is entirely incorrect. My point about Russia vs here is I don't take kindly to people from other countries offering us lectures on how stuff is done better there. I fully accept that Russia and the USA are welcome to their gun laws. I prefer ours and I don't favour the idea of letting any gung ho would be Chuck Norris shoot intruders dead on sight. This doesn't mean I am pro-robber, I just don't believe it would do what you claim.

[AtW]

Well, you are welcome to your opinion - but I believe your logic is entirely incorrect. My point about Russia vs here is I don't take kindly to people from other countries offering us lectures on how stuff is done better there.

I don't think firearms ownership is done correctly in Russia, in fact Govt is afraid to give firearms to the people so that only police and criminals are armed.

In the USA they got it right however - it is the model that I like, failing that Germany/France/Swissland laws are ok too.

I fully accept that Russia and the USA are welcome to their gun laws. I prefer ours and I don't favour the idea of letting any gung ho would be Chuck Norris shoot intruders dead on sight. This doesn't mean I am pro-robber, I just don't believe it would do what you claim.

You have something in common with Russia - they tell people to fk off live elsewhere when they hear views that they don't like.

I don't tell you to fk off to Russia even though you deserve to be there, so fk off telling me where to live.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I don't think firearms ownership is done correctly in Russia, in fact Govt is afraid to give firearms to the people so that only police and criminals are armed.

In the USA they got it right however - it is the model that I like, failing that Germany/France/Swissland laws are ok too.



You have something in common with Russia - they tell people to fk off live elsewhere when they hear views that they don't like.

I don't tell you to fk off to Russia even though you deserve to be there, so fk off telling me where to live.

I think there are a few important distinctions here.

1) I'm not the one wanting to be able to change the law so I can open fire when I feel like it.

2) Your statistics are faulty.

3) I've always been here - I didn't move here to get away from somewhere else (I'm lucky I didn't have to). It's not perfect, but there are very very few areas in which I wish it was more like the USA or Switzerland. I considered moving to the USA a couple of times, but I decided I much prefer it here.

I didn't tell you to flip off somewhere else (just questioned why you are here if we're doing all so wrong - you mentioned carrying a gun in Russia and how wonderful it was, not me) but I do question why anyone would want the levels of gun deaths here that they have in the USA.

[AtW]

I think there are a few important distinctions here.

1) I'm not the one wanting to be able to change the law so I can open fire when I feel like it.

Fine, you don't have to open fire - don't buy firearm (I don't think you'd qualify anyway), just don't rob other people's houses ok?

2) Your statistics are faulty.

I've provided probabilities, that's not statistics. If you think my calculations are wrong then provide "correct" formulae.

I considered moving to the USA a couple of times, but I decided I much prefer it here.

Indeed, you are the Nu Liebor supporter, ain't you?

The point is:

1) people have right to self defence period.
2) criminal attackers have benefit of choosing the time of assault, place, and they are likely to be armed regardless if it's legal or not, they are also likely to attack people who are physically not as strong as them, attackers can also come in higher numbers

How the FK can you defend yourself if you have no access to legal proven means of defence? It cracks me up that even CS gas is not allowed in this country - it's like rape heaven or something? What's so wrong with women being able to have a CS/pepper spray with them? This country went totally unreasonable on proven effective means of self defence.

I mean FFS, Germany, France - neighbour counties have firearms available to good citizens, how the heck this country is that different? It's all Nu Liebor populist policy - thanks to it gun crime doubled since 1997, I am sure criminals do appreciate the fact that they won't get shot and also will be let off by courts, great country for criminals - if I was one I'd certainly choose it.