Home | Community | Message Board


Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon?
    #3461928 - 12/07/04 11:19 PM (12 years, 7 hours ago)

An Englishman's home is his dungeon
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: December 7, 2004)


One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass. In America, unless one resides in a very small number of problematic inner-city quarters or wishes to make a career in the drug trade, one will live a life blessedly untouched by crime. In Britain, alas, it's the peculiar genius of Home Office policy to have turned the entire country into one big, rundown, inner-city, no-go slum estate, extending from prosperous suburbs to leafy villages, even unto Upper Cheyne Row.

The murderers of John Monckton understood the logic of this policy better than the lethargic overpaid British constabulary. An Englishman's home is not his castle, but his dungeon and ever more so - window bars, window locks, dead bolts, laser security, and no doubt biometricrecognition garage doors, once the Blunkett national ID card goes into circulation.

All this high-tech protection, urged on the householder by Pc Plod, may make your home more secure, but it makes you less so. From the burglar's point of view, the more advanced and impregnable the alarm systems become, the more it makes sense just to knock on the door and stab whoever answers.

Mr Monckton's killers thus made an entirely rational choice. He was a wealthy man, living in a prestigious neighbourhood of ?3 million homes, and he presumably had the best security system to go with it. But time it right, get him to the front door, and the state-enforced impotence of the homeowner makes him as vulnerable as any old loser in a decrepit urine-sodden block on Broadwater Farm.

Various reassuring types, from police spokesmen to the Economist, described the stabbing of the Moncktons as a "burglary gone wrong". If only more burglaries could go right, they imply, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.

Her Majesty's Constabulary has metaphorically put a huge neon sign on every suburban cul-de-sac advertising open season on property owners. If you have a crime policy that makes "hot" burglaries routine, it's a reasonable bet that more and more citizens will wind up beaten, stabbed or dead.

I've been writing on this subject in The Telegraph for the best part of a decade now and, to be honest, I might as well recycle the 1996 or 1997 column and spend the week in the Virgin Islands.

My argument never changes. All that changes is the increasing familiarity of Britons with violent crime. Mr Monckton was a cousin by marriage of The Sunday Telegraph's Dominic Lawson, who is leading a campaign to allow citizens to defend themselves in their own homes.

That this most basic right should be something for which he has to organise a campaign is disgraceful. In New Hampshire, there are few burglaries because there's a high rate of gun ownership. Getting your head blown off for a $70 TV set isn't worth it. Conversely, thanks to the British police, burning the flesh of a London dressmaker to get her watch is definitely worth it. In Chelsea the morning after Mr Monckton's murder, Her Majesty's Keystone Konstabulary with all their state-of-the-art toys had sealed off the street in an almost comical illustration of their lavishly funded uselessness.

But let's look at it from their point of view. Suppose, instead of more of these robberies going wrong, they went right. The homeowner cowered in the bathroom, while the lads helped themselves to the DVD player and the wife's jewellery, and then the coppers came round and took a statement and advised you to get another half-dozen door chains and keep the jewellery in a vault at the bank.

Is it reasonable to live like that? After some crime column or other last year, I had a flurry of letters from American readers who'd been working in Britain and had been astonished at the rate of "garden theft" - that's to say, stuff the average American would never dream of lugging indoors back home, but which, during his sojourn across the pond, had been half-inched from the patio in the course of the night.

The British establishment's current complacent approach accepts that ever greater and ever more violent crime is a fact of life, rather than a historical aberration encouraged by the unprecedented constraints placed on the law-abiding and the boundless licence extended to the criminal class. That policy leads remorselessly to more deaths, and to lives lived under small but ever more insidious and corrupting restrictions.

The Tories' big mistake was their failure to understand that "freedom" isn't just about consumer choices or buying your council flat. It's also about being free to defend your home - after all, you're there on the scene and the West Midlands Police 24-Hour Crime Hotline answering machine isn't.

And an assertive citizenry, confident in its freedoms and its responsibilities, is a better bet for long-term survival than the passive charges of the nanny state. If the Government declines to pay any heed to The Sunday Telegraph campaign, and if the police persist in victimising the victims of crime, then I hope we'll see widespread jury rebellion and a refusal to convict.

The right to protect your family does not derive from any home secretary or chief constable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main..../ixopinion.html

*** I expect this editorial will elicit some discussion from our frequent readers who reside in the UK. I look forward to their contributions.



pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Phred]
    #3462452 - 12/08/04 01:12 AM (12 years, 5 hours ago)

Do British burglars have bad teeth?

What a terrible situation Britian seems to be enduring. You can't even defend yourself in your own home?

In my area there are some burglaries, but they are always when the person is not home. Any burglar in my area realizes that if you go in when the homeowner is present, they will probably be shot.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Phred]
    #3462604 - 12/08/04 01:49 AM (12 years, 5 hours ago)

One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass.

  :lol:

Perhaps a key indicator of a society's health is NOT having an underclass?

"I was frightened to defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.

Utter bullshit. Pure corny propaganda. There is no court in the UK going to prosecute a woman for fighting back against two men.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 2 days
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3462901 - 12/08/04 03:20 AM (12 years, 3 hours ago)

The only way of getting rid of the underclass is by genocide.

Hasn't anyone heard of stun guns?

Don't tell me those are illegal there too.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 30 days
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Phred]
    #3463049 - 12/08/04 04:15 AM (12 years, 2 hours ago)

What a shed load of unmitigated bollocks!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Phred]
    #3463317 - 12/08/04 07:07 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

One of the key measures of a society's health is how easily you can insulate yourself from its underclass.

The problem is when the 'insulation' breaks down, see France 1789.


In Britain, alas, it's the peculiar genius of Home Office policy to have turned the entire country into one big, rundown, inner-city, no-go slum estate, extending from prosperous suburbs to leafy villages, even unto Upper Cheyne Row.


I live in Britain, Earth, Sol System, 28,000 LY from Galactic Center, Milky Way Galaxy? Not sure where the Britain this guy is talking about is located.


The murderers of John Monckton understood the logic of this policy better than the lethargic overpaid British constabulary. An Englishman's home is not his castle, but his dungeon
and ever more so - window bars, window locks, dead bolts, laser security, and no doubt biometricrecognition garage doors, once the Blunkett national ID card goes into circulation.


Window locks and dead bolts, yes. Laser Security and biometricrecognition :laugh:, this man has been watching too many Bond films I think.


Various reassuring types, from police spokesmen to the Economist, described the stabbing of the Moncktons as a "burglary gone wrong". If only more burglaries could go right, they imply, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain.


Utter crap.


In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing.


Prefect example of a meaningless statistic, probably freshly picked from between his cheeks.
The actual crime statistics show crime is falling, see the home office link at the end of this post. Athough a rise from 2 last year to 3 this year would show a rice of 50%, thats statistics for you.

That this most basic right should be something for which he has to organize a campaign is disgraceful.

Under UK law you are permitted to use 'reasonable force' to defend your home, which may involve killing the intruder. Some people argue that 'reasonable force' is not enough, and we homeowners should be immunity from
prosecution.



The British establishment's current complacent approach accepts that ever greater and ever more violent crime is a fact of life, rather than a historical aberration encouraged by the unprecedented constraints placed on the law-abiding and the boundless license extended to the criminal class. That policy leads remorselessly to more deaths, and to lives lived
under small but ever more insidious and corrupting restrictions.


Fortunately the 'facts' show the opposite it happening.


And an assertive citizenry, confident in its freedoms and its responsibilities, is a better bet for long-term survival than the passive charges of the nanny state. If the Government
declines to pay any heed to The Sunday Telegraph campaign, and if the police persist in victimizing the victims of crime, then I hope we'll see widespread jury rebellion and a refusal to convict.


I have served on a Jury, although not on such a case, they are extremely rare. The jury would be deciding on wether the force against  the intruder was 'reasonable force'. I would trust a jury to come to the right decision on this.


The right to protect your family does not derive from any home secretary or chief constable.


I would agree with that statement, but the rest of the article is pure fantasy.


Monckton Murder
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4054313.stm

UK Home Office, British Crime Survey
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0304.html


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 30 days
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: psilomonkey]
    #3463340 - 12/08/04 07:23 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)



--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
light your candle on my love
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 51,431
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 1 day, 28 minutes
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3463482 - 12/08/04 09:05 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Hasn't anyone heard of stun guns?

Don't tell me those are illegal there too.




*nods* as illegal as firearms with the serial number filed off...
Stunguns are useless toys however. You need to hug the attacker for at least three seconds to stun him, otherwise he jumps back and gets flushed by adrenalin and pretty pissed off at you.
Stun gun x Knife? Fine, I'll take the knife :frown:


People tend to forget they go to jail for self defense at least four weeks after they mashed the burglar into their carpet. That gives you ample time to respond to an assault on your life.

If somebody viciously attacked me I wouldn't spend a single thought on  legal self defense until i was sure he was not getting up to attack me again. And i'd turn myself in to the cops and do the time without protest because I have saved my own life.

It sounds to me that story with the hot iron was BS. She likely was stunned with fear of her attackers but not of legal consequences.
When it's life or death you either implode or explode but whatever you do you're smack in the middle of the very second you're in.


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3463810 - 12/08/04 11:33 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Hasn't anyone heard of stun guns?

Yes, not very effective I hear.

Don't tell me those are illegal there too.

They are in fact. You get a get a shotgun license if you live on farm or out in the sticks easy enough.

We do have soccer balls though.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleOJK
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: psilomonkey]
    #3463972 - 12/08/04 12:26 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

There are a number of problems with this vacuous article. Let's take the first utterly moronic statement;

"But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing."

The logic of this argument seems to be - "People in Britain have better security, so burglars have decided to break in more when people are at home to bypass the security. This is proven by the fact that 50% of burglaries happen when home owners are in, as opposed to 10% in America"

The major problem with that argument is that it totally ignores the statistical nature of the evidence. Of course, if you have better security, the percentage of burglaries committed when owners are at home will go up, even if the actual number of burglaries committed when home owners are present is the same as it was before home owners invested in better security.

In other words, the evidence the article cites could just as easily illustrate the success of the security systems in preventing burglaries when home owners are away, rather than an increase in burglaries when owners are at home. Thus, that argument is entirely flawed.



The second major area of fallacy is this;

" But let's look at it from their point of view. Suppose, instead of more of these robberies going wrong, they went right. The homeowner cowered in the bathroom, while the lads helped themselves to the DVD player and the wife's , and then the coppers came round and took a statement and advised you to get another half-dozen door chains and keep the in a vault at the bank.

Is it reasonable to live like that? After some crime column or other last year, I had a flurry of letters from American readers who'd been working in Britain and had been astonished at the rate of "garden theft" - that's to say, stuff the average American would never dream of lugging indoors back home, but which, during his sojourn across the pond, had been half-inched from the patio in the course of the night.
"

I laughed when I read this. This passage is arguing; "People in Britain don't own guns. People in America do. People in Britain have things stolen from their gardens, whereas people in America don't. Therefor, people in Britain should own guns in order that they can shoot burglars who attempt to steal garden ornaments".

This is the entire problem of the whole "gun ownership means protection" argument. Somebody being in your house without your permission isn't a justification to shoot them! . Of course it's not! If the government legalised gun ownership and declared that home owners could defend themselves with any force they felt was necessary, that would be tantamount to the government introducing the death penalty for burglary. The government would be vindicating killing someone because they are stealing from you. Somebody stealing your TV or your money doesn't mean it's for you to KILL them! How could it possibly be considered that? The government has a duty to protect everyone, no less people who break the law. People in Britain are currently permitted to use reasonably force to defend themselves in cases of burglary. All this means is that the burglar has to actually threaten you physically before using violence against them. Stealing from you isn't threatening you physically.

Essentially, the position of the right-wingers is "burglars are outside of the law. They don't deserve the law's protection." These people should therefor be shot if they break the speed limit, drop litter or cheat on their tax returns.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
light your candle on my love
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 51,431
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 1 day, 28 minutes
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: OJK]
    #3464314 - 12/08/04 01:48 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

If I owned one of those pump-action 12 gauge shotguns and got burglarized, I would lock myself in a room just like I would in my present unarmed situation.

Americans often have funny ideas of home defense...

Only if my life were threatened I would shoot, but then you can bet that I'd shoot like a junkie in withdrawal :evil:

Home defense shouldn't mean to shoot somebody because they steal your stereo. Thats my major complaint about American pro-gunners, the more vocal ones boast they would kill at slight provocation.
Self-defense isn't abusing superior cowardly weapons to kill a thief.

If people were responsible I wouldn't mind guns being legal. But people aren't, at least in western society.
Many people in southeast asia own cases of dynamite for dynamite fishing but they don't go around blowing eachother up.
In many third-world nations where people are starving in the streets you can walk those streetsat night without being mugged.
Western society is fucked up.


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3464857 - 12/08/04 03:41 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Utter bullshit. Pure corny propaganda. There is no court in the UK going to prosecute a woman for fighting back against two men.




So if she had an illegal firearm, like your "neighbor hood crack dealer"'s MAC10, she wouldn't be prosecuted?


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Asante]
    #3464875 - 12/08/04 03:46 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Wiccan_Seeker said:
If I owned one of those pump-action 12 gauge shotguns and got burglarized, I would lock myself in a room just like I would in my present unarmed situation.




If you opened your door and were stabbed, you'd lock yourself in a room and hide? Sounds like I'd shoot first and answer questions later.
Quote:


Americans often have funny ideas of home defense...




Funny how? Like I'm a clown? I'm here to amuse you?

But seriously, why are they "funny"? If someone was banging on your door and yelling at 2 in the morning and they heard you racking your 12 gauge pump action shotgun as you started toopen the door, think they'd try to stab you?
Quote:


Only if my life were threatened I would shoot, but then you can bet that I'd shoot like a junkie in withdrawal :evil:




:thumbup:
Quote:


Home defense shouldn't mean to shoot somebody because they steal your stereo. Thats my major complaint about American pro-gunners, the more vocal ones boast they would kill at slight provocation.




If someone had broken into my house I'm not going to examine his actions and study his habits to guess at his reason for doing so. He'd have a shotgun in his face and he'd either comply with my demands to lay flat on the floor or he'd be getting 12 .30 gauge tracheostomies.
Quote:


Self-defense isn't abusing superior cowardly weapons to kill a thief.




If someone has broken into my house, I don't want to challenge the guy to an even and fair fight, I want him out or dead.
Quote:


If people were responsible I wouldn't mind guns being legal. But people aren't, at least in western society.




As compared to what? Societies where they don't have guns? Middle Eastern society where funerals and weddings seem to be great times to fire off your AK-47 in the air?


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: OJK]
    #3464919 - 12/08/04 03:57 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Odiumjunkie said:
The major problem with that argument is that it totally ignores the statistical nature of the evidence. Of course, if you have better security, the percentage of burglaries committed when owners are at home will go up, even if the actual number of burglaries committed when home owners are present is the same as it was before home owners invested in better security.




The numbers don't specifically support the position that more "hot" robberies occur in situations with more security systems. I'd personally think that the scumbag would just look for another target. But when you know that the owners of a home won't have a gun, why not go there with your illegal gun?
Quote:


This is the entire problem of the whole "gun ownership means protection" argument. Somebody being in your house without your permission isn't a justification to shoot them! .




It's not? What if they are raping your wife? What if they haven't started to rape her, but are threatening? What if they've just threatened that they have a gun, but aren't showing it? What if they have it out, but not aimed at you? What if they shoot at you and miss? Where do you say that you have justification? If they are in my house without my permission, I'd draw a firearm. You seem to be confusing the "use" of a firearm in that manner with actually discharging a round. I don't think that anyone would sneak up on a robber looking at their TV and shoot in him the back of the head. They would do as I do, sneak up behind them, turn the tac light on, let them see the massiveness of a 12 gauge barrel, then say "PUT YOUR MOTHERFUCKING HANDS ON YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR MOTHERFUCKING FINGERS INTERLOCKED OR IM GOING TO BLOW YOUR MOTHERFUCKING EYES OUT OF THE BACK OF YOUR SKULL". I seem to think that this would work. And if it didn't and the person moved for a weapon, or moved at all, really, they'd get shot.
Quote:


Of course it's not! If the government legalised gun ownership and declared that home owners could defend themselves with any force they felt was necessary, that would be tantamount to the government introducing the death penalty for burglary. The government would be vindicating killing someone because they are stealing from you.




Wrong. You aren't punishing the person for coming to rob you, you are protecting yourself. If a woman shot a man who was about to rape her, would the government be "vindicating" (wrong word, btw) killing a rapist? Hardly. They'd be saying that you don't have to allow others to force their will on you.
Quote:


Somebody stealing your TV or your money doesn't mean it's for you to KILL them! How could it possibly be considered that? The government has a duty to protect everyone, no less people who break the law.




The government also has a duty to allow the citizenry to protect themselves. Again, your fundamental thesis is flawed. Most people wouldn't shoot someone JUST FOR breaking in, they'd use the gun to warn them and if they didn't comply, they'd shoot them.
Quote:


People in Britain are currently permitted to use reasonably force to defend themselves in cases of burglary. All this means is that the burglar has to actually threaten you physically before using violence against them.




So when the burglar comes in with his illegal gun and you have your, say, kitchen knife, what do you do? Ask him REEEALLLY nicely to put it down?

Again, you are way off base logically. In America you can't do that either, so why are you basing your comparison as if you can? If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in the back of the head as they raid your jewelry cabinet, you'd be prosecuted for it. However, if you gave them an order to comply and they didn't, or they made a threatening move, you could acutally do something about it.
Quote:


Stealing from you isn't threatening you physically.




Invading your home is. But, again, you can't shoot someone JUST for that.
Quote:


Essentially, the position of the right-wingers is "burglars are outside of the law. They don't deserve the law's protection." These people should therefor be shot if they break the speed limit, drop litter or cheat on their tax returns.



"right wingers " are the only ones that would defend themselves with a gun? Hardly dude.

For a post that starts out addressing fundamental underlying flaws of logic in someone elses opinion, you sure are chock fullof them yourself. In America you CANT shoot someone just for breaking in to your house and most gun owners don't want to. They'd tell the person to freeze and put their hands up or something. Your assumptions and 'facts' are way off base.


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: SoopaX]
    #3464963 - 12/08/04 04:06 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

They would do as I do, sneak up behind them, turn the tac light on, let them see the massiveness of a 12 gauge barrel, then say "PUT YOUR MOTHERFUCKING HANDS ON YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR MOTHERFUCKING FINGERS INTERLOCKED OR IM GOING TO BLOW YOUR MOTHERFUCKING EYES OUT OF THE BACK OF YOUR SKULL".

Did you blow your wad when you were writing this soop?  :smirk:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleOJK
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: SoopaX]
    #3465088 - 12/08/04 04:30 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

The numbers don't specifically support the position that more "hot" robberies occur in situations with more security systems. I'd personally think that the scumbag would just look for another target. But when you know that the owners of a home won't have a gun, why not go there with your illegal gun?

Because the vast, vast majority of burglars in the UK don't have firearms of any description.

It's not? What if they are raping your wife? What if they haven't started to rape her, but are threatening? What if they've just threatened that they have a gun, but aren't showing it? What if they have it out, but not aimed at you? What if they shoot at you and miss? Where do you say that you have justification? If they are in my house without my permission, I'd draw a firearm. You seem to be confusing the "use" of a firearm in that manner with actually discharging a round. I don't think that anyone would sneak up on a robber looking at their TV and shoot in him the back of the head. They would do as I do, sneak up behind them, turn the tac light on, let them see the massiveness of a 12 gauge barrel, then say "PUT YOUR MOTHERFUCKING HANDS ON YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR MOTHERFUCKING FINGERS INTERLOCKED OR IM GOING TO BLOW YOUR MOTHERFUCKING EYES OUT OF THE BACK OF YOUR SKULL". I seem to think that this would work. And if it didn't and the person moved for a weapon, or moved at all, really, they'd get shot.

Re-read what I actually said. "Somebody being in your house without your permission isn't a justification to shoot them! ." Obviously, if that person is raping your wife or aiming a gun at you, the situation changes entirely, and it is up to a jury to decide wither or not the force you respond with to those circumstances is reasonable. If you walk up behind someone with your gun, tell them to lay down on the floor, and they don't do it, that's still not justification to shoot and kill them, because they're not threatening you, they are simply not obeying you.

Wrong. You aren't punishing the person for coming to rob you, you are protecting yourself. If a woman shot a man who was about to rape her, would the government be "vindicating" (wrong word, btw) killing a rapist? Hardly. They'd be saying that you don't have to allow others to force their will on you.

Stupid. If the increased rights proposed for home owners are granted, it will become much easier to shoot or otherwise persecute with deadly force a person simply for breaking into your house. If a woman shot a man who was about to rape her, that would be covered by the already existing legislation's scope for "reasonableness".

Oh, and yes, "vindicating" is exactly the right word.

"The government would be vindicating killing someone because they are stealing from you."

Vindicating - "To provide justification or support for"

"The government would be providing justification or support for killing someone because they are stealing from you."

The government also has a duty to allow the citizenry to protect themselves. Again, your fundamental thesis is flawed. Most people wouldn't shoot someone JUST FOR breaking in, they'd use the gun to warn them and if they didn't comply, they'd shoot them.

Yes, but clearly, the way to legislate to ensure people can't legally shoot a burglar "just for breaking in" is to draft legislation allowing for the use of reasonable force to defend one's self much like the current legislation.

So when the burglar comes in with his illegal gun and you have your, say, kitchen knife, what do you do? Ask him REEEALLLY nicely to put it down?

Again, you are way off base logically. In America you can't do that either, so why are you basing your comparison as if you can? If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in the back of the head as they raid your jewelry cabinet, you'd be prosecuted for it. However, if you gave them an order to comply and they didn't, or they made a threatening move, you could acutally do something about it.


In many states, you wouldn't be prosecuted at all for shooting someone for no reason other than they had broken into your house.

The point is, if a burglar comes in with a knife, you should do nothing to engage him unless he threatens you with the knife, at which point you respond with reasonable force. However, if you are holding a gun and then intentionally engage him and then shoot him if he doesn't obey your commands, that clearly oversteps the boundaries of self-defense into some hazy pre-emptive defence that is tantamount to giving home owners the right to doing anything they like to intruders.

Invading your home is. But, again, you can't shoot someone JUST for that.

No, it's not. If I break into your house at three in the morning, you aren't in danger from me, unless I otherwise engage you. Until that point, you shouldn't be allowed to hurt me.


"right wingers " are the only ones that would defend themselves with a gun? Hardly dude.

No, I refer to the move on the British right wing to grant increased rights to home owners to attack burglars, on which this discussion is based, remember? :rolleyes:

In America you CANT shoot someone just for breaking in to your house and most gun owners don't want to.

Wrong.

The common law justification of self defense is exaggerated grossly when applied to people's homes in American law.

Because of the vastly confusing State system there is no generally recognised test case on self defence killing, but in many states the interpretation of being "threatened" can more or less be applied to any situation in which there is an intruder in your home.

If you support only being able to use force against an intruder in self-defence, what exactly is your problem with current British legislation?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
light your candle on my love
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 51,431
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 1 day, 28 minutes
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: SoopaX]
    #3465237 - 12/08/04 05:00 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

If you opened your door and were stabbed, you'd lock yourself in a room and hide? Sounds like I'd shoot first and answer questions later.




Unrealistic. In this scenario you'd have no chance to reach for that gun. They'd be inconspicious and then make the move.
The stabbing attempt would be an attack on my life which means i'd save myself by any means is most effective on that moment.

Quote:

If someone was banging on your door and yelling at 2 in the morning and they heard you racking your 12 gauge pump action shotgun as you started toopen the door, think they'd try to stab you?




You don't open that door!! you make it clear you got a gun by means of the Mossberg Universal Translator and sit on guard but you don't engage the fight by opening that door.
Opening that door is NOT self-defence, it's an agressive move. If they bust down the door and storm in or shoot through it you open up. That's self-defence.

With "funny ideas" I mean that some think you can shoot somebody if they walk on your property, or want a full-auto weapon for "home defence".

Quote:

He'd have a shotgun in his face and he'd either comply with my demands to lay flat on the floor or he'd be getting 12 .30 gauge tracheostomies.




That's an act of unneeded aggression and you get within his reach. He's a junkie so he'll go berserk, you blast his neck (bit like an M-80 in a pound of meatloaf rather then 12 holes) contract AIDS and spend your last years in a prison.
The weapon gave you false courage.

Quote:

As compared to what? Societies where they don't have guns?




Europe. Japan. Almost no guns in circulation and far less crime there too. all the states of europe + japan together haven't got the violent crime of the USA while that's about 1 billion people's worth of modern societies.

If your government stumbles some of your militia will pour out over the population shooting, looting and carrying out their at times racist agenda, you then get a counterstrike and you've got yourself a new civil war or rather: your country will become one big Beirut.
And all because you never disarmed nor eased the tension between population groups.
And if the USA is on it's ass the entire world suffers it.
Who will have power then? I think the most vicious, ruthless bunch of the lot rather then the lawful gun owner.
Then what?

Mere disarming won't work anymore for the American situation, but it never should've gotten as bad as it is.

In my country you can get a gun permit, but you gotta prove the quality of your character by quite strict rulings.

Like i said: society can't handle the relatively free availability of guns. There have to be strict rules to keep the wrong guy from getting a gun.


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: OJK]
    #3465323 - 12/08/04 05:16 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

The point is, if a burglar comes in with a knife, you should do nothing to engage him unless he threatens you with the knife, at which point you respond with reasonable force.

at in-house ranges, an intruder with a knife should generally be shot on sight.

No, I refer to the move on the British right wing to grant increased rights to home owners to attack burglars

attack burglers?

:rotfl:

if all someone wants to do is steal some property, they will tend to hit a house where no one is home. it's usually only if they are looking for someone to be home, or they are too psychotic (dangerous) to tell the difference, that they break into an occupied home.

i have no problems with laws allowing people to use deadly force against home intruders on sight. you cannot ask a person to make life-or-death force escalation decisions at 3 am and honestly expect them to err on the side of restraint for the sake of a home-intruder. no one is forcing anyone to break into homes. you break into an occupied home, you risk getting shot. not a tough choice to make IMO.

that said, i want to make it clear that i am not a 'gun-store commando' and i get a good chuckle out of tough talk like there's been a little of in this thread. you'd think some people want to have their house burglarized so they can get to kill someone. most people do not realize that if you shoot someone in your home, you will very likely be arrested pending an investigation. you will have to clean up a gory mess. if you haven't ever killed anyone before, congratulations! now you have! i don't care how tough you think you are... you're gonna spend some real time thinking about it. you will very likely have permanent hearing loss. IMO it's a million times better if you don't have to shoot someone, but i think as far as the law goes, whether or not to shoot at a home intruder is up to the discretion of the victim.

my plan, if my home is ever invaded by an unwelcome nocturnal guest, is to take a position at the top of the stairs with a phone in one hand and shotgun in the other. rack a round, and announce "the the police are on their way. take what you want, but do not even think about coming up these stairs." (repeat en espanol).

does that sound like a reasonable response?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
light your candle on my love
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 51,431
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 1 day, 28 minutes
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: ]
    #3465396 - 12/08/04 05:29 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

my plan, if my home is ever invaded by an unwelcome nocturnal guest, is to take a position at the top of the stairs with a phone in one hand and shotgun in the other. rack a round, and announce "the the police are on their way. take what you want, but do not even think about coming up these stairs." (repeat en espanol).

does that sound like a reasonable response?




Only if you see he isn't holding a gun. If you don't see him you don't know what he's up to. (as in: already has a pistol pointed at you.) Drop an M-80 down the stairs to get his attention :evil:


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: An Englishman's home is his (A) Castle or: (B) Dungeon? [Re: Asante]
    #3465408 - 12/08/04 05:32 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Wiccan_Seeker said:
If I owned one of those pump-action 12 gauge shotguns and got burglarized, I would lock myself in a room just like I would in my present unarmed situation.




I live with my family. Locking myself in a room and leaving everyone else to fend for themselves is simply not an option. If I heard an intruder heading for my little sister's room you had better be damned sure I would not stay put. I take the prospect of killing someone very seriously and I will avoid it if at all possible, but if an intruder is in my house and in a position where he could harm myself or my family I will not hesitate to use deadly force.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Gun crime rise has peaked Xlea321 441 1 10/17/03 08:14 AM
by lysergic
* UK Crime increasing? Decreasing? Both....
( 1 2 all )
st0nedphucker 1,514 25 07/23/04 03:48 PM
by mntlfngrs
* Firearms.
( 1 2 3 all )
ray40cal 3,247 49 06/10/08 10:48 PM
by whatsgrimace
* Convicted Felons Owning Firearms retread 436 8 09/15/04 04:15 PM
by retread
* Canada's firearms registry: The issue isn't gun wingnutx 402 1 07/24/03 12:35 AM
by pattern
* Abortion: crime prevention?
( 1 2 3 all )
SneezingPenis
3,295 58 04/28/07 01:38 AM
by SneezingPenis
* Does multiculturalism cause crime? Conservationist 689 7 09/18/07 02:41 PM
by BrAiN
* A summation on blacks, crime and white nationalism
( 1 2 all )
MagicalMystery 1,715 36 04/19/06 11:25 PM
by gogrowgo123

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,801 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.19 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 17 queries.