My point isn't that you should shoot the kid who sets a bag of poop on fire on your porch.

My point is that if you hear a noise and walk into your living room to find that someone has illegally entered your home, you are already justified in using lethal force in most jurisdictions. Unless your ESP is more effective than mine, you have no idea what the guy is there for, and your life is in danger. Now, you don't HAVE to shoot him, or even own a gun -- that's a personal decision. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your regard for his life is reciprocated.

if i walk into my living room, with a firearm in my hand, to find a burglar/unknown/unwelcome person there i will not wonder what their intentions are. i will assume there are not in my best interests and i will kill them. any other course of action allows them to possibly cause me harm. it isn't about property. i can replace absolutely any and everything i own. i cannot replace my wife, my child, or myself. my doors are locked, my windows are locked. anyone other than those i've welcomed in, has made a deliberate choice to violate the safety of my home. i don't care one little bit about their intentions after they do that.

If I'm reading correctly, jaguar seems to be referring to people who are already fleeing, while you are referring to people whose reaction to you has not yet become clear. Jaguar, the UK law, and the law in many US states say you are not entitled to kill someone if they are already fleeing, but if you discover someone in your home, and you don't know if they're about to pull a gun on you, killing them is justified self defense.

Gripe with the guy or gripe with the law enforcement community's inability to enforce some of its laws effectively?

I don't mean this disparagingly, but your use of the word 'disable' in this context may be a good indicator of the difference in thinking across the ponds.

I don't value property as property per se. I value it as how much of my life it would take to replace it. My time is more valuable than the time of someone who is only willing to take the time to steal it.

They're stealing more than property, they're stealing your quality of life, your piece of mind, your ability to feel safe and secure in the one place it should be guaranteed.
Any time you leave your home you have to be wary, not unduly nervous, but alert to possible trouble. Home is the one place you can completely relax...sleep....naked. :)

My gripe was with noodle's assertion that the legal system was completely and totally ineffective in dissuading criminals to seek revenge, something I've not heard of happening after a common assult or burglary.


[/quote]If I'm reading correctly, jaguar seems to be referring to people who are already fleeing[quote]
Yes, thankyou, that is my point.

I use the word disable in a very clinical & absolute sense, to highlight this - a 12ga sabot round though the chest would be an effective way of disabling someone.

Beyond that, *shrugs*, it's situation dependent & individual perspective. Each to their own. I hope however I've made the nature of UK law on the whole issue a little clearer.

I think that the whole idea of disarming a people who was founded on, and the idea reinforced by its founders, everyone having guns is rather foreign.

People, both here and abroad, will say that we've matured as a country to the point that that isn't true anymore, that a civilized country doesn't need guns, but I think that if you actually look at the history of the world and notice how right our ODWGs are turning out to be you'll see that they are more right now than they've ever been.

i think there's another piece to the argument as well. by disarming the citizenry, we can fool ourselves into thinking that finally we have this "violence" thing fixed. in reality, we're no safer than we were 300 years ago -- we're perhaps less safe, although we like to think otherwise.

anyway, my point is that we all want to disassociate ourselves from our inherently violent nature, and mistakenly think that a law banning weapons is a step in that direction.

We aren't violent. We're selfish and short-sighted. Violence is easier than compromise or understanding.

well to throw in my 2 cents worth.. I walk everywhere (then again I have the advantage of being 6'5 and look a little mean if I want) I have been jumped a couple of times, and so far I have been the one holding the knife... but then again, I don't want to cut anyone, I mean I work with animal parts all day every day for the past 15 years, uh... if i want to cut you and make it work I can.. anyway! I started just carrying a can of pepper spray (I tell you what! I tried that stuff out on myself before I wanted to use it on another person.. ohhh.. ouch (and yes I was drunk at the time!))

and as a side note guns are for cowards.. it takes little skill to be able to 'point and click someone to oblivion' to duel, that's a whole 'nother matter :) then again I can be rather archaic

it isn't about courage. it is about self preservation and protection. i have no interest in showing my bravery in a dangerous situation. i would much rather point and click someone to death than find out my fists, spray, blade weren't quite enough. in fact, when they get laser death rays to shoot out of our eyes, controlled only by our thoughts - I'll be the first one in line to by the system.

Are you implying "lazy" as well?

I guess this is where your user title comes from, yes? Interesting. Maybe you could make thread about it. Butcher? Forensic veterinarian? County roadkill manager? Hmmm.
:confused:

Lazy is subjective.

At what point does it go from being an effort to work less hard to being lazy? That's why I think it falls under short-sighted.

From a less intellectually pretentious viewpoint, yes, lazy as well. :)

I've been called a lotta things, but never have I been described as less intellectualy pretentious than anyone.

I was following this line of thought: violence is bad, compromise and understanding is good, violence is easy compromise and understanding is hard. Choosing violence over compromise and understanding is like choosing bad and easy over good and hard. From there it's not a big leap to lazy.

I think of the times when there was violence in my life, and your shorthand works well. It was easier to choose violence to push across the finish line than it was to labor at compromise and understanding. Whether I dress up the violence in the clothes of laziness, exasperation or fear, is not, in my experience, relevant. There have been no experiences where it was "me or him". And yet, violence.

When I ask myself "Why?", lazy is as good as any other answer and better than most.