How Guns Are Being Used By Citizens in America Each Year
 

Quite much self defence in US. Is it really that wild west or do they shoot mailmans too?

I would like to point that gun ownership is not the only factor. Right to shoot people with little barrier, is important factor too. Even if for example UK would have as much weapons and the handguns as US, you can't just shoot people like in US.

no, i'm pretty sure murder is illegal in the US as well.

Yes, but the definition for murder is different. For example in some states you can shoot people entering your property, if they are suspicious or something. Also, you can shoot for example burglar (for burglaring), if I am not totally uncorrect.

I'm pretty sure you can shoot someone legally in any country if they break into your house and try to rob you. :2 cents:

No, you can't.

Sorry, was I uncorrect?

Yes, you were uncorrect. At least in most western countries you are only allowed to defend yourself and your property with minimal force regarding the situation, and what you are defending. In plain words, you can't kill anyone just for robbery. Or even intentionally killing unarmed robber who is threatening your health (considering the situation), but shooting the robber in the leg will usually be justified in that case. It's case by case.

You know, things are proportional, you can't kill anyone for stealing candybar, as it's just a fucking candy bar.

I cannot speak for every country on Earth, but those principles are common at least in western countries (excluding USA).



EDIT:

Example from English laws about self defence.

""A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.""

"Opinions differ as to what constitutes "reasonable force" but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine this because he would always maintain that he had acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law

Nice infographic










.

So how long do you have to wait until you feel you or your family's life is in danger after someone forces entry into your house while you and your family are sleeping? Do you have to ask them if they intend to harm you? If they say no, they're just interested in stealing your TV, you can't legally shoot them? Maybe ask them to write down a detailed summary of their intentions in your house? I mean not all people that break into houses while the owners are sleeping with the thought of burglarizing them are bad people, right? Break-ins never go bad and innocent people are never harmed. Just let them steal what they want and if you're nice, help them load up.

Get the fuck outta here. I seriously think you just troll for the sake of trolling. You honestly can't be this dumb in real life.

Why you call me with names? I am talking about laws. Do you think I made those laws? Well, I think that the laws are pretty much right, but nevertheless I didn't make those.

Yes, you can't shoot people just stealing your TV. And if you read the addon from my previous message, you don't decide is the shooting justified. Sure, you can shoot, as you control your own actions, but someone else will decide was it justified or not.

You call me as a troll because I tell what is the law (outside US)? Fucking ridiculous.

You can shoot 'em dead in the two states I live in. :)

Post proof or retract.

example of brilliant polish law:

few years back two motherfuckers break into home of one guy (knife collector), in a home there was his wife and young daughter, burglars yelled at him they will rape his wife and daughter if they won't come down (from upstairs, apparently he's keept door closed) a man called police and explained situation (do you think they come on time? lol...) when the fight starts (two burglars come upstairs finally) our knife collector deadly wounded one guy with some big slasher and hurt other (sadly other one survived) needless to say burglars were armed in melee as well.

medics managed to save one of the attackers, turns out when police comes that they were ex-cons who have rapes, and robbery on their record. the one who survived sued our man who defended his family and our guy landed in jail for few years - because he used weapons agains those two :D

now he is suing our government for a lot's of cash, i wish him the best.

so bottom line to answer your question: no, in poland it's better to lay down and let attacker to rape and slash you, at least you will not end in jail (it's not a joke). i envy american's their law that actually let them defend themselve, one of few things i love in america.

I already did quote example about English law, but here is other example from the same Wikipedia page.

"However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Australian case of Palmer v The Queen, on appeal to the Privy Council in 1971:

"The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."[2]

In R v Lindsay,[3] the defendant, who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self-defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. It would not be expected that an ordinary householder who "went too far" when defending against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law

"One recent case on using force against a burglar is Anthony Martin v R (2001) EWCA 2245,[2] which resulted in the householder being convicted. As the law currently stands, a person in possession can use no more force than they reasonably believe necessary to remove a trespasser from the premises. Further, where the threat to the land or its possession is not immediate, and other measures could be taken that would make force unnecessary (e.g., calling the police or seeking remedies through the courts) the defence will normally be lost."

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

Which shows why the UK is so much more violent than the US, and yet another reason in a long list of why I will never live there again.




.:2 cents:

Usually we don't shoot the mail person .(yeah we allow women to deliver mail also) , As long as the mail goes in the right mailbox . Sorry gotta go someone just untie my horse and I gotta chase it down .

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, there are so many other factors influencing. British also drink alot, and usually that doesn't lessen crimes, and that's just one example.

For example that handgun example from the first post seems quite ridiculous. "Violent attacks soared 77 %." in ten years after handgun ban. First of all, how much handguns there were at the first place? Not that much as far as I know. So before making hasty conclusions, one should establish handguns influence before the ban. So, if making very simplified example: if there was 1 handgun and after handgun ban crime in the country soared 100 %, does that really have something to do with handguns, or in this case with the handgun?

Not that I would agree about handgun ban in general.

GFY nevers fails to deliver. Why doesn't the media come to GFY for their experts on everything? Thank god there are people like AKA123 to keep the community informed.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

My problem with people owning firearms is the track of training and lack of understanding of tactics.

The recent shooting in Vegas this year is good example. Two gunman shot two police officers and fled to a local Walmart. There a civilian armed with a handgun felt empowered to take them on. The civilian had no understand of the tactical situation at all, and failed to notice a second gunman. The civilian opened fire, missed, and was then shot and killed.

This civilian felt empowered by having a handgun and thought he could handle the situation, and very, very wrong - and paid for it with his life.

People on this board have said that if someone breaks into their house at night they would engage them with their firearm. Really? Are you really going to engage an unknown amount of people in your house in the dark and start a firefight? What if your daughter was just thirsty? Are you going to end up shooting your dog because they knocked something over in the dark?

Statistics that prove that the more machines that are designed to kill there are the safer you are lead one to think they are false.

Nope. Only the US places zero value on human life like we do. Most places try to resolve things wthout death being the only option. I know it is so weird.

:thumbsup

Remember the situation in FL where younger guy threw some popcorn on an older guy in the movies and ended up dying as that retiree shot him to death claiming that he felt threatened. If no gun was present, perhaps broken nose and heated F You exchanges would never lead to a dead body. How can you trust that people will always judge the situation correctly? Like the cop who killed his daughter who was hiding behind the curtain playing a joke on his dad. In both cases the guy was a good person with no violent past or bad intentions. If no gun was present, there would be no tragedy.

It's hard to disagree with those points. I mean, I have to go out on a limb and say "yes, it's a good thing that sometimes these stupid situations happen." Well, I'm willing to go out on that limb. I would much rather that these scenarios be possible rather than forfeit the unseen benefits of there being guns.

What do I mean by unseen? Your examples are clearly seen; they happened. What isn't seen are all the situations that didn't happen because the potential perpetrator, for fear of being shot, did not commit an act of aggression. Where your examples seem to establish an obvious case against guns, my examples don't exist. But my examples not existing is a good thing, and reason to advocate guns!

I tried to look the sources of that first post "infoblast". After checking first source, the tone is quite different than in that "pro-gun" blast.

"Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems. "

"Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: "This is a real damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock-on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour. "

This one I already mentioned.

"More than 20 people a day were taken to hospital accident and emergency departments in England last year after being hit, kicked, scratched or bitten. Alcohol is blamed as a factor in half of the incidents and raises further questions over 24-hour drinking. "

"Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured. "

Not a word about handgun ban.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

Also, the quote about Harvard study was a quote about a quote. Quoted by American Civil Rights Union (quite pro-gun folks I suppose). Here is the Harvard study as a original (I haven't read it yet).

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Also remember that on that very same day... millions of other gun owners went about living their lives and didnt shoot anyone.

Every time you see a cop beating someone on the news, there were thousands of cops that day that were professional and courteous doing their job.

For every kid that gets left in a hot car and dies, there were MILLIONS that day that didnt.

You're picking up on events that represent like 0.00001% of the population.

It's not the Wild West here. But if you break into someone's home, you can get killed over it. We dont have to run, and it isn't murder when it's in your state's legal definition of self defense.

Yeah, that "info blast" is quite bullshit all in all. This study's most applicable conclusion is that more guns doesn't automatically equal more violence, other way around not so much or at all, when examining many countries.

"Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for
low violence rates in high gun ownership nations other than the
United States, one wonders why that deterrent effect would be
amplified there. Even with the drop in United States murder rates
that Lott and Mustard attribute to the massive increase in gun
carry licensing, the United States murder rate is still eight times
higher than Norway’s—even though the U.S. has an almost 300%
higher rate of gun ownership. That is consistent with the points
made above. Murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and
cultural factors. In the United States, those factors include that the
number of civilian‐owned guns nearly equals the population—
triple the ownership rate in even the highest European gun‐
ownership nations—and that vast numbers of guns are kept for
personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with com‐
paratively high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may
well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homi‐
cide. But even so, American homicide is driven by socio‐economic
and cultural factors that keep it far higher than the comparable
rate of homicide in most European nations.

In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership
have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict
gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times
and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by
deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is
evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun
ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the
more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread
gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had
high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact
severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have ex‐
perienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reac‐
tion has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.
This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citi‐
zenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce vio‐
lence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns
to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun
laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not signifi‐
cantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely
wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in
the incidence of murder in any particular society."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

On the other hands how many innocent lives could be spared? No statistics, but if we follow your way of thinking, conclusion is :" it is worth to sacrifice few innocently/accidentally killed for the probability of saving few more who did not get their TV stolen".
Well I hope none of us is that innocent one, or would you like to be the one innocently killed? Would you?

I think this is the first time I have fallen into one of these pro / anti gun ownership traps, but that is simply the dumbest infographic I have ever seen.

you can pretty much copy any line off of there, google it and get multiple sources on how they twisted the information to look the way they wanted it to.

Of course I don't want to get killed, but I'm not the one trying to disarm everyone. I take personal responsibility for my security. Your example is specious; it's not just televisions that get stolen. Even if it were just a "few," it's worth it. The guy who gets shot in the face by the 9-year-old -- good riddance! One less idiot in the world. Whereas, the competent gun owners that protect their property from theft are doing a good service for society; they have more money to invest in other projects (as opposed to spending it on a replacement television).

are you saying you innocently steal tv's? and would like to remain to be able to do so without getting killed?

Do you have death penalty for stealing TVs?

no but self defence is legal in every country.

Not for stealing TVs (killing), I thought that we got that established already. In US yes, other countries no. Well, maybe in Somalia, etc., but they have that TV for TV thing.

You are pretty clueless person on some topics, but on this, you are absolutely right on all you wrote. What amazed me is that some people don't understand that there are countries where paranoia and fear from armed people and robbers don't exist or it is on very low level. I remember times when we were leaving doors and cars unlocked and without fear of being attacked, robbed, or anything like that.So anyway,in most civilized countries you don't have a right to kill anyone because human life have highest value.

It's funny how many people don't even live in the U.S. but have all the answers on how to make things better. Armchair quarterbacking at its finest.

And by the way, if you come into my house uninvited, all you're going to hear is the pin hitting the cap and then a loud boom. I don't care if you have a candy bar or my TV in your hands, you're getting dropped and I'm taking my family out for ice cream while Stanley steams your brains out of my carpet.

Selfdefense is not intentional?

No, that wasn't the argument at all, but since you are clearly a child I'll remind you that it was about innocent people being killed. My point was there are no innocent robbers.

I am quite sure that we all live in somewhere, although not all of us in USA.

You think you can blow someone away in cold blood like that and not feel anything after? Sorry doesn't work like that, not even for psychos...

So what was the argument regarding killing people stealing TVs? I thought it was this?

"are you saying you innocently steal tv's? and would like to remain to be able to do so without getting killed?"

About innocent people, quite many "innocent" people have been killed as a burglars or whatever, you know, mistakenly. Unless the shooter has intentionally shot "innocent" people.

I am going to throw some "know it all" in here. Some people doesn't feel emotions like us, or at all regarding compassion. It has been studied that folks in prison have this symptom unsually often vs the rest of the population. Well, it somehow explains why they end up to jail.

I know, Glen, I would be a wreck. I just said that for effect. It would take a lot for me to shoot someone, and if I did, I would more than likely load some buckshot into my Mossberg and aim low. Maybe take out a leg or two. I couldn't live with A) killing someone and B) putting my kids through additional trauma.

op go have beer and stfu :2 cents:

Do you have any ideas how many times I've heard something go bump in the night in the past year? Six? Sixteen? Ten times out of ten it's either my daughter or my dog. I have a home alarm and I no longer get concerned about hearing something in the house in the middle of the morning.

I'm sorry, but I would much rather have someone steal my TV instead of myself having shot and killed my wife or daughter by mistake.

Good for you! Please don't try to force this standard on your neighbors. Thank you.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup