We'll Change Law On Killing Burglars

[AtW]

If this is true then why is burglary so rife in the US.

It's not THAT rife in states where home owners have rights to use deadly force when someone is breaking into property.

They've had guns laws for 230 + years, surely that's long enough for even the yanks to get the idea. But has it worked?

Yes it worked very well - their population is very well armed and this makes it impossible for Govt to opress their own people. Or take the guns out of their hands before killing them first - this model ensures that the state is not a danger to the people.

Armed men - are free men.

[Cliphead]

this model ensures that the state is not a danger to the people.

Are you serious????

[Sysman]

Agreed.

I personally think we should be allowed to kill anyone that looks like they may even be thinking about invading our personal bubbles

That includes junk mail and junk email posters

But nowadays that includes the postman

[TimberWolf]

Did they teach you probabilities in school?

I think I've explained it pretty clearly, with 50% probability of either defender or attacker shot (dead or wounded bad enough), the attacker will have 90% chance of being shot after 3 attempts.

Given that scumbags like thieves, burglars are in big minority it means that those of them stupid enough to continue their activities (at least when people are in the house) will be dead or wouded.

You present some garbage probabilities and pass them as some kind of proof. Most of the time the burglar will be keen to avoid meeting the householder for a start. Chances are that the mates of anyone you did manage to kill would extract justice on you pretty quickly anyway.

[Coalman]

It's not THAT rife in states where home owners have rights to use deadly force when someone is breaking into property.



Yes it worked very well - their population is very well armed and this makes it impossible for Govt to opress their own people. Or take the guns out of their hands before killing them first - this model ensures that the state is not a danger to the people.

Armed men - are free men.

You really think that the US government fears its own people?

How the fck did George Bush get away with being elected twice?

[AtW]

Chances are that the mates of anyone you did manage to kill would extract justice on you pretty quickly anyway.

And so will they want revenge if you do to court as a witness against that scumbag - the difference in your scenario is that the person who is witness won't have a chance against a few unarmed or armed (they are criminals so don't give a tulip about legalities) men.

Consequently the society you advocate is either that of nanny state (police will help me - as if they got time to be everywhere - at best they can catch your killers), OR life in fear.

I like neither.

[AtW]

You really think that the US government fears its own people?

Yes, that's why it mostly uses violence outside of country.

How the fck did George Bush get away with being elected twice?

What this has got to do with legal gun ownership in USA? USA is split between Reps and Dems, they both rule one after another, anybody could have been in Bush's place to get the job. This has nothing to do with guns ownership anyway - Bush's violent activities were strictly outside of country. Compare that with opressives regimes such as say Zimbabwe. or Russia.

[RichardCranium]

this model ensures that the state is not a danger to the people.

Armed men - are free men.

Unless they are black.

Or "native Americans" (what an awful expression).

Or poor.

Or Spanish-speaking.


Merkia: land of the free and home of the brave. So why are the braves on reservations?

[Cliphead]

Compare that with opressives regimes such as say UK. or Russia.

FTFY

[TimberWolf]

And so will they want revenge if you do to court as a witness against that scumbag - the difference in your scenario is that the person who is witness won't have a chance against a few unarmed or armed (they are criminals so don't give a tulip about legalities) men.

Consequently the society you advocate is either that of nanny state (police will help me - as if they got time to be everywhere - at best they can catch your killers), OR life in fear.

I like neither.

I could see a case for gun ownership if society went to pot, but we aren't there yet, or anywhere close. What's the odds of being killed by a burglar in the UK? Close to zero I would suggest. In the states the probability being much higher I imagine, for those that haven't been shot by family members first (the most likely scenario when you own a gun). If you want to shoot someone who is a real threat to you, start with motorists, and your own family.