General discussion

From my side of the fence (pond) this is unimaginable for me

Melton Mowbray, Leics (UK)

"Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot was 'plagued by break-ins'

A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies."

"A second man was later treated for gunshot injuries after arriving at Leicester Royal Infirmary, 10 miles from the scene of the shooting. Neither of the men is said to be seriously injured. "

"They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty. "

"The case will reignite the debate over a householder's right to defend his property, which began in the late 1990s after the farmer Tony Martin shot two burglars at his remote Norfolk home. In 1999, Martin fired at Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, after they broke into the house in Emneth Hungate.

Three shots were fired, Barras was hit in the back and despite escaping through a window died moments later. Martin was convicted of murder and jailed for life, which was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and five years' jail. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9516776/Farm-tenant-arrested-after-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: From my side of the fence (pond) this is unimaginable for me
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: From my side of the fence (pond) this is unimaginable for me
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Not quite exact.

You're talking about "thousands of criminal's lives" and "thousands of innocent victim's lives".

Apart from the fact that SHOOTING somebody for self-defence doesn't necessarily imply KILLING him (there are those unhappy incidents like that of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, of course, but that shouldn't be the rule, just incapicating is enough), your figures (that thousands of innocent victims) aren't current, and probably have never been.

"The Home Office figures published today [January 2012] show that England and Wales are in the middle of the European murder league at 13.5 deaths per million population. Finland tops the table at 23.4, followed by Scotland at 21.4, and Ireland on 20 per million. Northern Ireland now has a murder rate well below Scotland at 15.2. Austria has the lowest murder rate in Europe at 6.1 per million." That's from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years.

Page 42 of http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary (it's the pdf-file, the link is on http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/crime-prevention/latest-crime-statistics) shows the exact number of homicides (that's murder, manslaughter and infanticide) to be 642 in 2010/11 in England and Wales. That doesn't include Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I doubt if including those two countries would make it 1000, let alone "thousands".

And then, of course, an unknown part (it's not in the two links I gave, but maybe you have better sources) are murders in relation to crime itself (gangs, drug wars, criminals) where it's better to speak of "professional risk" than of "innocent victims". At least a part of those victims have a gun, I'm sure, but it doesn't help them.
Also, it's hard to imagine that infanticide would be reduced by allowing babies to use guns to defend themselves. And there's the "crime passionel" (like murdering your wifes lover) where the lover (even if called 'innocent') most likely wouldn't be helped by having a gun; that goes more or less for all killings inside families and by 'friends and relations' you trust (but better hadn't).

So I think the number of homocides with an innocent victim that - in some realistic scenario - would have been able to defend himself succesfully had he had a gun, is less than half of 642. A far cry from "thousands".

Kees

- Collapse -
No Kees, my comment about "thousands" ...

was exactly as accurate as his original statement regarding "tens of thousands" (although I couldn't bring myself to make it that big).

My post you are responding to is actually a response to two of his, this one with the verbage and his previous with no text at all where he pulled a wild guess from his A__ http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6130_102-571941/from-my-side-of-the-fence-pond-this-is-unimaginable-for-me/?tag=contentBody;threadListing#message5355821

I am surprised you didn't notice his rather blatent remark "A person is over 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun in Britain as in the Untied States, more than twice as likely as in Canada, about 17 times more likely in Scotland, but less than twice as likely in Northern Ireland." as well as his rather inane remark indicating his complete ignorance regarding the adoptation of the second amendment within the Bill of Rights where he states <b>"Just because the Second Amendment has been rammed down your throat by
the NRA and Olin Matheson, and Winchester and Colt and Browning and all
the other arms manufacturers, doesn't mean their reasoning is true and
accurate, or even a long shot."</b> as none were around when the States required the right to keep and bear arms as a requisite to their ratifying the Constitution.

You should have read the links I offered refuting the Kellerman "study" as they address the same concerns you note about what is included and excluded to arrive at the numbers arrived at.

- Collapse -
(NT) I did my research, I don't accept your source as unbiased. R
- Collapse -
I don't trust your Pro-Gun sources which ignore

all the gun suicides and accidental shootings both of which which far outnumber either criminal murders or especially self protective acts.

However removing guns from Americans is like trying to unbake a cake. Now that everybody is armed to the teeth, nobody will give up anything. It may be ludicrous, and lethally damaging to the families, but it won't happen. However, if you compare statistics you get an idea of what might result from the change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

The UK has a murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000, the US has a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000, roughly 3 and a half times as great. If you accept the Wikipedia figure of 14,748 murders annually not including accidental deaths or suicides and divide by 3.5 which is about the difference between 4.8 US and 1.4 UK you still come up with 10,000+ lives saved if the US murder rate could be reduced to the level of that in the UK. Canada incidentally is 1.9 per 100,000 The US murder rate does not include accidental deaths or suicides which raise that figure considerably.

As for Wikipedia as a source for statistics. The Statistics are not created for Wikipedia by the authors, they are drawn from other authors' work often the FBI or other Government Agencies, but knowing you Edward you probably don't accept Government Statistics either.

I don't expect you to accept it. It contradicts everything you believe even if you have no unbiased statistical evidence to back up your contention, and you leave things out of the equation just like Kellerman did. If you had read the Wikipedia article on Kellerman, you would have seen that the author of the article acknowledged the absence of things like "brandishing a fire-arm to ward off attack". It was quite a balanced assessment.

The percentage of successful use of a firearm
"* 0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
"* 1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense"
But
"* there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
"* there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
"* there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings."

If you eliminate all these additional deaths, accidental, criminal homicides in the home (usually killing a spouse, usually the woman) and suicides then you vastly reduce the death toll. Not everyone who has an impulse to kill him or herself will go to the trouble or be as successful using other methods. The impulse can occur and be acted upon within seconds with a hand gun. Pills, cutting wrists, jumping off balconies or bridges are neither as instantly fatal in the case of Pills or wrist cutting, or as easy, balconies and bridges, as pulling the trigger of a gun.

The simplest way to say it is that guns cost many more lives than they save, and many more innocent people are killed by guns than are criminals, even excluding suicides which are the largest number of people killed by a gun kept in the home.

One of the statistics missing from Kellerman are the number of people killed when their own gun is used on them by criminals. 500,000 hand guns are stolen each year which keeps criminals very well armed.

I actually knew a woman who did commit suicide by defenestration (literally jumping or being thrown out a window) and since she lived in a bungalow she had to go to extreme lengths to find a balcony high enough and then to talk herself into the apartment before she jumped to her death. Very few people are that desperate or that functional when they are depressed as to research all of her daughters classmates home addresses, create an issue to discuss with a complete stranger then drive over there, and abandon her daughter when she jumped. That is a very extreme act.

Rob

- Collapse -
Once you account for racial differences

and just look at the white race statistics between both countries, any difference is negligible.

- Collapse -
Being top dog.......

of the planet has its drawbacks. The US can't be perfect in every way.

Also, comparing gun homicides, or violent crimes between the US and Canada per 100,000 may not give the clearest picture. It's known that the most populous areas typically have higher crime rates. Considering that 31+/- million people live in all of Canada while 32+/- million people live in California, U.S.A. alone. The current population of United States is close to 300 million. In Canada, an average of 3.4 persons live in each square kilometer of land. In the Unites States, an average of 29.8 persons live in each square kilometer of land.

However, guns can become a problem when people are not taught to be moral and to behave. The ancient Greeks knew that societies need both laws of the land and spiritual laws to keep people in line. When religion (not endorsing any particular religion) is removed from society by the PC crowd morals go down and crimes go up. If Canadians can't be taught to behave then taking their gun rights away is one way to keep them in line, I guess.

Switzerland got it right, IMO. Not only do the Swiss people teach themselves spiritual goodness, they also know that if they break into anothers house in the middle of the night it will likely be their last break in.

1- No standing army and 5% of their military are full time, but not permanent. 95% are Militia comprised of everyday citizens. Men between ages of 18-34 are issued personal guns and ammo and are trained and required to rise up and fight in case of invasion. Women may volunteer.

2- 42+% of the citizens own guns, but their gun homicide rate is only .52 per 100,000 ppl compared to 3.7 in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

3-Just over 70% of the Swiss population are Christians and only 9% believe in no spiritual being.

4- Everybody pays a Church Tax. The government distributes the money accordingly.

5- If one pulls a gun on another Swiss, in a public place the would be assassin will likely have a number of guns pointed back at his/her head. Consequently, another reason to behave.

6- They are a moral & religious people and the educational system is good, too.

7- They mind their own business and they build great pocket knives and clocks.

One more thing, many in the USA want religious references removed from public view, but those same people offer nothing better in return for teaching morals and goodness to our society.

- Collapse -
Sorry, Mistake, A person is 20 times more likely to be

Killed by a Gun in the US as in Britain. The rest of it is fine.

- Collapse -
wrong

try again

- Collapse -
Well, why wouldn't it be more likely?
- Collapse -
And victims of knife crimes have what percentage better

chance of survival than victims of gun crimes. You get stabbed in the gut, they fix you up, you get shot in the gut, one good suit will do you for eternity. Now that's not 100% true, but the devastation of a deep penetrating gunshot wound, usually a through and through, is far greater than a knife wound which is normally shallower than 6 inches. If by some chance the person is armed with a carving knife, and if they manage to sever the descending aorta, then death will result too quickly for any intervention. But that takes uncommon luck or skill and training. Ask any Marine how difficult it is to kill someone with a knife.

Rob

- Collapse -
Maybe the whole point is.......

that some people are just evil, twisted, mean sob's. IMO, taking guns away is merely a band-aid. Why not get to the root of the problem and allow the people as well as the law hold criminals accountable for their actions. Switzerland makes it work very well.

I do not know what country you live in, but your throwing the UK up as some model eutopian society is far from reality. If you do not live in America don't worry about our gun laws.

- Collapse -
RE: If you do not live in America
If you do not live in America don't worry about our gun laws.

You think people in America can worry/comment about your gun laws, and people in other countries (besides America) can't worry/comment about your gun laws?

America has special status?
- Collapse -
Americans have special status

They are citizens.

- Collapse -
I'm also a citizen.

a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).
2.
an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
3.
an inhabitant, or denizen: The deer is a citizen of our woods.
4.
a civilian, as distinguished from a soldier, police officer, etc.

- Collapse -
Stupid laws...

Many may think it's a USA mentality to so righteously punish wrong doers. But I'm sure all across the world, once someone breaks into your home, if you have the means, you will do whatever comes to mind, good or bad. The whole point being, if the homeowner can't defend themselves and property from wrongfully being taken away from them, why should the law somehow protect the "wrong doer" int act of criminal activity. Why, should anyone reach for a club when a shotgun is present and handy. Any home owner would want to over-whelming stop or prepare to stop wrong doers in their tracks. I suppose in some 3rd world location, they'll be knifed or beaten. These wrong doers put themselves at risk when engaged in wrong doing. -----Willy Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) Even Jesus said it
- Collapse -
Apparently stupid me. The only two times I had to confront

someone in our house, I had a baseball bat; the arsenal was locked up in the basement. Both times the kids lit out like scared rabbits. Knowing gun laws in Canada, and having become disenchanted with hunting and the Looney Gun Lobby, I sold my two rifles before we moved up here. I didn't need to, rifles are permissible here, the restrictions, and they're not very onerous, are on hand guns. To be honest I don't know what the situation is regarding convertible semi-automatic weapons but I think it's a blanket ban. I certainly don't know anyone with one, but I don't think I know anyone with any guns here except a couple of hunters whom I don't know well.

Rob

CNET Forums