A Fine Use Of A Firearm - Page 4

MMMMMM · #31 10-01-2005, 08:02 PM

It is hard to know if he should have returned with the gun, or done as you suggest; but if he does as you suggest how is he to know that the burglar would not force his way into the house and attack him? Interior garage doors often have only the flimsiest of locks on them. Maybe the burglar is on meth or crack or something? Maybe he will come through a window? Maybe he will decide he must silence the homeowner before he calls the police? Maytbe he will barge through and attack the homeowner as he is distracted making the 911 call? Who knows?

Danny Dunn does "sound" a bit "dumb" as you put it, but if he actually is, then more power to him, I say, for even so overcoming this vicious attacker with just the right amount of force.

You do have a point about Texas laws, and the legalities of the whole thing. My poersonal opinion though is that even Texas laws--not to mention laws everywhere--should grant the homeowner or innocent victim even more latitude in the use of force as a response.

For instance, take an intruder who uses a knife attack. The attacker then turns away briefly. You have no way of knowing if he will actually leave, or if he will attack again momentarily or in a few minutes. Hence I think you should have the right to pursue a short distance especially while still on your property, and to shoot him. Prefrably you will aim to incapacitate rather than to kill, if the bullet hits him in a vital spot by accident well then it is HIS fault not yours. HE commenced the vicious knife attack and I think that should be sufficient cause to considered that he thus voluntarily surrendered his right to personal protection for a short time thereafter.

So, I'm saying the laws should be changed a bit. Do you remember the case of Bernard Goetz? In my opinion the laws should be changed so he could not be convicted of a crime for what he did. The muggers endangered his personal safety. I think even overwhelming force should be permitted under such circumstances. If some gang members threaten you with sharpened screwdrivers on the street or in a streetcar, I think you should have the right to maim or kill them right then and there. Why? Because you have know way of knowing whether or not their threat might end up maiming or killing you--and because they are the initiators and transgressors.

nicky g · #32 10-01-2005, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you kill someone who stabbed you enough to require 49 stitches, then it is called self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you kill him after you have incapacitated him.

nicky g · #33 10-01-2005, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if all that is the case, the hhigh incarceration rate doesn't seem to be doing much to counteract high crime.

What do you think the fundamental cause of all this idiocy as you see it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, it's certainly the fact that our country was populated by you sending all your criminals over here way back in the day. Thanks a lot nicky, look what you've done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, they sent nothing but criminals to Australia and it doesn't have US-style crime levels. Plus I'm sure you got amongst the best of us.

newfant · #34 10-01-2005, 08:11 PM

I guess if you consider attempting to murder some poor soul who was likely foraging for food in a rich guy's garage a good use of a lethal weapon ... then this was a good use of a firearm.

MMMMMM · #35 10-01-2005, 08:17 PM

Also higher are Holland, Sweden and Canada. Chart at link; there are plenty more corroborating links available on the web if you search.

" PEOPLE living in England and Wales are at greater risk of falling victim to crime than citizens of most other industrialised nations, according to a study published yesterday.

The International Crime Victims Survey, based on 34,000 telephone interviews across 17 countries, found that 26 per cent of people - more than one in four - in England and Wales had been victims of crime in 1999. The figure for Scotland was 23 per cent and in Northern Ireland 15 per cent.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said the research confirmed previous evidence "that levels of victimisation are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime". Mr Straw said that although the police and other agencies were working hard to reduce crime, "no one should be under any illusions about the challenges ahead".

England and Wales were second only to Australia in the examination of "victimisation rates", details of which appeared in the Economist. There was a downward trend in crime levels from previous surveys in 1991 and 1999. People in England and Wales were at greater risk than anywhere else of having their cars stolen: 2.6 per cent fell victim to vehicle theft.

The average rate was 1.2 per cent and the Japanese were least likely to have their cars stolen with a victim rate of just 0.1 per cent. Theft from cars was highest in Poland, where nine per cent of people had items stolen from their vehicles. In England and Wales the level was eight per cent.

The percentage of the population which suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 per cent, compared with 1.9 per cent in the United States and 0.4 per cent in Japan. Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 per cent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 per cent).

The risk of robbery was comparatively low in all the countries surveyed. Highest rates were in Poland, where 1.8 per cent of the population said they had been robbed in 1999, followed by Australia and England and Wales (both 1.2 per cent). By far the lowest robbery risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (both 0.1 per cent)

After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 per cent), Sweden (25 per cent) and Canada (24 per cent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimisation rate.

Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland, each with 15 per cent, recorded the lowest overall victimisation rates in the survey which was conducted by Leiden University in Holland and published by the Dutch justice ministry."

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/g...crimerates.htm

benfranklin · #36 10-01-2005, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
some poor soul who was likely foraging for food in a rich guy's garage

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a rich guy, but I have it on good authority that rich guys don't keep their food in the garage. Most of them have pantries and refrigerators and such.

But the "poor soul" probably did have that knife in case he came across a prime rib or something in the garage. It is a good think the "poor soul" didn't have a full complement of cutlery, or Danny might have gotten forked too.

TransientR · #37 10-01-2005, 08:28 PM

Nice post!

For every story like this there are many unwritten stories of gun owning macho men getting their asses blown off trying to defend their property against desperate men who shoot better and have less to lose.

Frank

nicky g · #38 10-01-2005, 08:40 PM

I'm not sure I trust something based on interviews, especially something that doesn't take into account the seriousness of the crime. While I agree that using each countries' own crime statistics presents the problem of different levels of convictions, reporting etc, using evidence based on surveys equally presents problems of perception. One statistic that seems pretty crucial to me is the murder rate as people dying rarely goes unreported and can't easily be invented or ignrored. It also clearly highlights the most serious kind of crime. On that basis the US remains way ahead of the rest of the developed world (the source is about five years old but I doubt things have changed much since).

Murders by Country

benfranklin · #39 10-01-2005, 08:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard to know if he should have returned with the gun, or done as you suggest; but if he does as you suggest how is he to know that the burglar would not force his way into the house and attack him? Interior garage doors often have only the flimsiest of locks on them. Maybe the burglar is on meth or crack or something? Maybe he will come through a window? Maybe he will decide he must silence the homeowner before he calls the police? Maytbe he will barge through and attack the homeowner as he is distracted making the 911 call? Who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws vary from state to state, but generally you are entitled to use reasonable force needed to protect yourself as long as you feel a threat of bodily harm or death.

Say that someone threatens you with a knife. If you pull a gun and he drops the knife or turns and walks away, you cannot use any more force, and you cannot go after him. The threat is removed.

If you pull a gun and he still comes at you with the knife, you can shoot him. If he drops the knife and/or falls down, you must stop, you cannot shoot him again. The threat is removed.

If you are in the house and he is not, the threat has been removed. By going back out to the garage, Danny is becoming the aggressor. A jury of bleeding-heart gun-control nuts in a civil suit filed by the shootee could just as easily as not rule that Danny used excess force. And Danny can't use his gun to protect his property from the jury.

Most states do not allow the use of lethal force in the protection of property. As I said, Texas is different and does in certain circumstances. I am not kidding that it is my understanding is that you can shoot someone in defense of your property after dark in Texas, but not during the day.

Laws aside, every self-defense instructor will tell you the same thing. If you are out of danger, stay there. In Danny's case, he is in a more advantageous position in the house with a gun than going out in search of the thief who might be anywhere with any kind of weapon (ax, hammer, etc.) that he picked up in the garage.

MMMMMM · #40 10-01-2005, 11:43 PM

I think it is true that the US has higher murder rates, but it is also true that a number of modern countries now have higher overall violent crime rates than the USA.

I recall recently reading, too, that London and Toronto now have higher street crime incidence rates than does New York City (or that may be their respective overall violent crime rates; I don't recall precisely. Sorry it's late, and I'm not apt to go look it up all over again, as I read it some weeks or months ago; but it should easily searchable on the web if you're interested).