You guys and your guns...

[Seth]

This is why burglars in the US very often do NOT carry guns or other weapons. They want the swag, but they don't want to give the homeowner any reason to shoot them. That's also the reason that US burglars generally commit "cold" burglaries, which means they carefully scope out the house to make sure nobody is home before breaking in so they don't get shot dead. On the other hand, in the UK, "hot" burglaries are quite common and burglars will enter occupied homes knowing that the occupants do not have firearms available to them and have been well trained by their government (under penalty of law) to not resist being burglarized lest they be prosecuted for harming the burglar.

Hmm do here the psychopaths going on about hot and cold burglars every so often, would love to see the statistics for any country in the world that keeps such figures . It's not a separate crime to rob a house if someone is in or not so basically its made up lies.

No, it's fact. It's just that the UK deliberately doesn't keep track of whether an occupant was home or not, for political reasons, just like they don't keep track of the EMPLOYMENT of child molesters so that they don't have to recognize how often teachers molest children in the UK. Burying their heads in the sand is a Brit trait. Here's the reply I got to an email enquiry (like a month later):

Dear Seth,

Thank you for contacting the NSPCC.

We do not know exactly how many cases of sexual abuse against children in the UK involve teachers (in public schools, state or otherwise). The statistics that are gathered by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice do not provide a break-down of offenders by profession.

Read our sexual abuse statistics web page for further information on available statistics, along with links to the original data sources: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resource ... 87833.html

(NB: the Home Office link to the British Crime Survey doesn’t appear to be working at the moment).


If you are interested in more general research relating to child sexual abuse and independent schools, you can search the NSPCC Library catalogue at http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/NSPCCLibraryOnline.asp
Go to the Advanced search and type in the keywords “child sexual abuse” and “independent schools”. You could also try broadening the search out using the keywords: teachers or schools.


Sorry that we have not been able to be of more help on this occasion. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,

Duty Librarian
NSPCC Information Service
NSPCC | Weston House | 42 Curtain Road | London | EC2A 3NH | 0808 800 5000 | help@nspcc.org.uk | http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform
Search the NSPCC Library Online: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/NSPCCLibraryOnline.asp

It however it extremely easily to rob any house in the UK and guess what, it isn't because we are unarmed sheeple (that term was created to describe right wing religious gun nuts who follow every word of their local priest)

Wrong.

but for the fact that as a typical household with 2 working parents and a minimum of 30 days statutory holiday a year is typically completely empty for 50% of the time.

Which doesn't explain why so many houses are robbed when people are at home, now does it?

My house certainly is. I certainly do worry about being burgled when I go on holiday (Morocco this year) its typically about a 1 in 10 to 20 chance depending on where you live but that's what insurance is for. I however never for one second even think about someone breaking into my house when I'm actually there. It's far more likely an aircraft landing at the local airport would come through the roof than an burglar coming into an occupied house.

Uh huh. Keep right on believing that Ostrich Boy.

Also even if they did and actually wished me harm they would be at more throat within 5 seconds considering the size of a British house (probably not much bigger than your hummveee) so I would almost certainly still be asleep

That's why early warning systems and barriers to entry are a good idea, along with a gun for when they actually gain entry.

Now an automatic laser guided machine gun next in the front and back garden almost certainly would reduce burglaries but could cause problems with the local postman not to mention the neighbors cat

Just set the control system so it doesn't shoot anyone until AFTER they enter your home. Neither the postman nor the cat do so, presumably.

[MrJonno]

Right so because the UK doesnt keep a record of burgularies with an occupatant present means that its fact that its common , I would be surprised if any country keeps such recods the police have enough work collecting the statistics of crimes actually occuring never mind making up crimes (like burgularly with an occupant present)

As for employing child molestors in a school, I can tell you the number of known child molestors employed last year its absolutey zero. The paranoia about this is high you can't even be a childrens book author and go an visit without a detailed criminal record check done on you. Parents themselves cant be involved in after school activites without such a check which has pissed a lot of people off as its basically assuming anyone from a teacher to the postman is a child molestor until proven otherwise.

Now if only they could do that sort of check on the Catholic church without doubt one of the most evil twisted sexually perveted organisation ever to exist on this planet. Never mind child molestors people who think its normal to choose a life of celebacy is a complete pervision of what it is to be human. While I have no problems with people who have weird sexual practices that don't hurt others (which is what deliberate celebacy is) such people shouldnt be allowed near children

[JimC]

There are really two separate arguments

1) American society is so violent that the only way for a 'law-abiding' citizen to defend himself is to have a firearm

2) This is a good thing

They are are actually two very different points 1) is understandable and may have some truth to it 2) is so fucked it that its hard to comprehend by anyone who istn a psychopath

I think both arguments are over the top. Most places in the States aren't dangerous in that way, and a lot of the places that are involve violence between gangs. However, it does seem that many Americans like the principle of self-defence via a hand-gun, or at least that one has a right to do so...

The second point is misleading in the extreme in the way you phrased it. I would be very surprised to find posters here saying that the existence of violence involving guns is a good thing. If you meant that some Americans think that self-defence via guns is a good thing, this is self-evident...

[Seth]

To Seth.

First.
New Zealand has the least corrupt government on the planet.

For now.

That does not come from us being naive sheep.

No, what makes you naive sheeple is your unwillingness to acknowledge that any government can turn to despotism under the right social conditions, and therefore it is always necessary for the people to be well-armed so that they can retake their government and return power to the people should that occur. Once the tyrant has taken control, it's too late to whine about not having the necessary arms to restore liberty, you have to think ahead and arm yourself against that possibility, which has the beneficial effect of deterring tyrants from even trying to take control of things, because tyrants detest and fear an armed citizenry.

The judgment came from an international survey, so is independent.

Whoopee. Who gives a fuck? It's not what your government is today, it's what it can easily become in a relatively short period of time and what you, personally, and everyone else in the body politic, can do about it either to prevent tyranny from rising, or take down a tyrant if it comes to pass. Living in a fantasy world that bad things will never happen to you and that everything will always be happy-happy, joy-joy without the necessary tools to make sure it stays that way is naive in the extreme. Just ask the German Jews or the Armenians about how that works.

The US came in 24th on the same survey, showing it is less corrupt than most third world nations, but more so than most advanced nations. Most of the 23 above the USA are countries with tight gun control. This clearly shows that allowing the more insane members of the citizenry to run around with guns does not make for a less corrupt government or nation.

Strawman argument. I never claimed that an armed citizenry would make for a less corrupt government, I said that an armed citizenry is the ONLY way to RESTORE liberty in the event that a corrupt government refuses to cede power and imposes tyranny. I would like to think that you're smart enough to understand the difference, but I'm not so sure. You seem to be mired in this sheeple-like mindset that things will always be the way you like them and that nothing bad will ever happen to change it.

I prefer to be proactive and prepared against the day that things go down the shitter with my government and it becomes necessary to restore the Constitution to its rightful place and recover liberty by force of arms. This is not because I expect it to be necessary any time in the foreseeable future, but because if I fail to prepare and arm myself, it will be too late to do anything about it if the worst case scenario comes to pass. The added benefit of a well-armed populace is that it deters government from turning from political corruption, which exists in EVERY government (including yours) to attempts at despotism and tyranny, as has happened so many times before, causing the deaths of more than 100 million people in the last century alone.

The only possible preventive prescription or method of recovery in the event of tyranny and despotism by a government is armed rebellion and restoration of democratic government.

Second
On comparing the rates of violent crime between nations.
Cannot be done. There is no internationally accepted definition of violent crime. This means that the figures for violent crime from one nation cannot be compared to the figures for violent crime of another. Apples and oranges.

Horseshit of the highest order. Minor differences in how "violent crime" is described in the recording criteria does not render all comparisons invalid, it just fuzzes the edges a bit. Assault is still assault, robbery is still robbery, rape is still rape, murder is still murder, theft is still theft. All it takes is a bit of rational analysis and some statistical work to harmonize the results. Criminologists have been doing it for decades and know way more about it than you do.

For example : In Sweden, a woman who agrees to have sex with a man, but really does not want to, can do him for rape after the event. Basically, if she changes her mind, he becomes a rapist. Obviously this provision raises the number of rape cases. So you cannot compare rape figures in Sweden with rape cases anywhere else. The same thing applies to other violent crimes.

Sure you can. Rape is rape. I'm sure the number of "fucker's remorse" incidents is very small even in Sweden, which makes it statistically insignificant, but it doesn't really matter in the long run, because non-consensual sexual contact is the same everywhere. Touch someone's sexual parts when they don't want you to, it's a crime.

In the same way, Seth, you said that a home owner in the USA, who has an uninvited guest who walks towards him, can shoot that person and it is self defense and legal. Well, the uninvited guest could be a sick diabetic, or person otherwise confused, and you just shot dead an innocent person. In my country, that is murder, but apparently not in the USA.

Nope, you state the law incorrectly. The uninvited entry must be combined with an intent to commit SOME OTHER CRIME in the residence and THEN COMBINED with a use or attempted use of force against any occupant of the premises. A drunk who just wanders in to the wrong house, or a confused diabetic who does not attempt to commit some other crime, like assault, robbery, rape, theft or whatever, and who doesn't attempt to use physical force against an occupant cannot be shot. The law is quite specific on that.

"Castle Doctrine" states hold that it is the absolute strict liability of every person to make sure they don't make an uninvited entry to someone elses residence for the purposes of committing another crime therein other than the uninvited entry and then lead the homeowner to believe that they are going to use force against an occupant. If you can't conform your social behavior to that required norm, then you deserve to get shot.

If you're drunk and you mistakenly break into my house in the wee small hours, and then you become belligerent and attack me (which is "another crime"...assault) when I tell you to leave or try to hold you for police, then I can shoot you because you've met all the requisite criteria under the law. The lesson here is, "don't get so drunk that you don't know whose house you've just broken into, and if you do, don't get uppity with the occupants, because you will likely get shot dead, and justifiably so, for doing so."

I don't consider that too difficult of a social requirement to require people to adhere to.

It's my home, and I have an absolute right to safety in my home, and I will defend that right as the law allows.

If you wish to live in a system where any drunken buffoon can break into your house, smash up your stuff and rape your daughter without your having the right to kill him, that's your lookout. Stupid, but it's your problem, not mine.

So please do not tell us that one country has more violent crime than another. You do not know, and neither does anyone else.[/quote]

[JimC]

Who the fuck are you to say that I shouldn't defend the things that are important to me?

Who the fuck are you to declare that your view of the world is superior to mine?

We are people debating an issue. That is who we are.

Who are you?

A hysterical over-responder to civilised dabate?

Precisely that...

[MrJonno]

The second point is misleading in the extreme in the way you phrased it. I would be very surprised to find posters here saying that the existence of violence involving guns is a good thing. If you meant that some Americans think that self-defence via guns is a good thing, this is self-evident...

Its not about violence involving guns being a good thing in itself but its an excellent justification for being to have your own one

[Seth]

Right so because the UK doesnt keep a record of burgularies with an occupatant present means that its fact that its common , I would be surprised if any country keeps such recods the police have enough work collecting the statistics of crimes actually occuring never mind making up crimes (like burgularly with an occupant present)

That you don't consider a burglary taking place while people are in the residence much more serious than that of an empty house is fucking insanity made manifest.

As for employing child molestors in a school, I can tell you the number of known child molestors employed last year its absolutey zero.

Who said anything about "known child molestors (sic)" You've just demonstrated both red herring and strawman fallacies at once. Besides, I'm pretty sure it's not true.

The paranoia about this is high you can't even be a childrens book author and go an visit without a detailed criminal record check done on you.

And you think that all child molesters have criminal records? Fucking halfwit.

Parents themselves cant be involved in after school activites without such a check which has pissed a lot of people off as its basically assuming anyone from a teacher to the postman is a child molestor until proven otherwise.

Uh huh. Which explains the following data how, exactly?

Statistics on child sexual abuse

June 2012

Sexual abuse homepage

Statistics homepage


Nearly a quarter of young adults experienced sexual abuse during childhood.

17,727 sexual crimes against children under 16 were recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11.



Research statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse

Child abuse and neglect in the UK today (Radford et al, 2011) is a major piece of NSPCC research which interviewed 1,761 young adults aged 18-24 years; 2,275 children aged 11-17 years and 2,160 parents of children aged under 11.

Below are the key findings on child sexual abuse.


Experience of some form of sexual abuse (see Table 5.2)

Nearly a quarter of young adults (24.1%) experienced sexual abuse (including contact and non-contact), by an adult or by a peer during childhood.

One in six children aged 11-17 (16.5%) have experienced sexual abuse.

Almost one in 10 children aged 11-17 (9.4%) have experienced sexual abuse in the past year. Teenage girls aged between 15 and 17 years reported the highest past year rates of sexual abuse.


Experience of contact sexual abuse (see Table 5.2)

One in nine young adults (11.3%) experienced contact sexual abuse during childhood.

One in 20 children aged 11-17 (4.8%) have experienced contact sexual abuse.

Two thirds (65.9%) of contact sexual abuse experienced by children aged 0-17 was perpetrated by someone aged under 18.


Disclosing sexual abuse (see page 118)

More than one in three children aged 11-17 (34%) who experienced contact sexual abuse by an adult did not tell anyone else about it.

Four out of five children aged 11-17 (82.7%) who experienced contact sexual abuse from a peer did not tell anyone else about it.

From: Radford, Lorraine, Corral, Susana, Bradley, Christine, Fisher, Helen, Bassett, Claire, Howat, Nick and Collishaw, Stephan (2011) Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. London: NSPCC.

Now if only they could do that sort of check on the Catholic church without doubt one of the most evil twisted sexually perveted organisation ever to exist on this planet. Never mind child molestors people who think its normal to choose a life of celebacy is a complete pervision of what it is to be human. While I have no problems with people who have weird sexual practices that don't hurt others (which is what deliberate celebacy is) such people shouldnt be allowed near children

Typical diversionary red-herring argument.

[JimC]

The second point is misleading in the extreme in the way you phrased it. I would be very surprised to find posters here saying that the existence of violence involving guns is a good thing. If you meant that some Americans think that self-defence via guns is a good thing, this is self-evident...

Its not about violence involving guns being a good thing in itself but its an excellent justification for being to have your own one

Fine, but in its original form, it was misleading, and asking to be swooped on as another blanket generalisation about Merkins...

And remember, the Americans who express the uncompromising "gun-nut" stance to the fullest are a small minority, even if they seem to have a disproportionate public profile, and effect on political decision making (e.g. via NRA lobbying). I certainly have no personal quarrel with Americans who are responsible gun-owners, although I may have a jaundiced view of the relatively lax regulatory environment for hand-guns and assault rifles, and a concern that it may lead to tragic consequences.

[Tyrannical]

To Seth.

First.
New Zealand has the least corrupt government on the planet. That does not come from us being naive sheep. The judgment came from an international survey, so is independent. The US came in 24th on the same survey, showing it is less corrupt than most third world nations, but more so than most advanced nations. Most of the 23 above the USA are countries with tight gun control. This clearly shows that allowing the more insane members of the citizenry to run around with guns does not make for a less corrupt government or nation.

Did the survey happen to mention why the US had such a high level of corruption? If I had to guess, I bet it had a lot to do with third world peoples (Blacks and Hispanics) in the US and the politicians that cater to them.

[MrJonno]

That you don't consider a burglary taking place while people are in the residence much more serious than that of an empty house is fucking insanity made manifest.

Exactly the same crime so couldnt give a toss unless someone gets hurt .

Statistics for that however are quite interesting
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

Check page 44 table 2.04 just over a 250 000 domestic burguarlies for the last avaliable data which is high (but down 50% from 10 years ago we need more CCTV cameras) but what is interesting is the number of aggravated burglaries ie those carrying a weapon is just over 1000 which I make to be less than 0.5%. So that makes 99.5% of house occupatants better armed than a typical burgular.

Wonder why that could be perhaps it could be something to do with a first time burgular getting community service or a fine if caught but if they carry a weapon which they won't need as they will be robbing a empty house they will be looking at 10 years +

[Blind groper]

To Wumbo

Did you read the conclusion from the Branas study. Her eis the first paragraph.

"After we adjusted for numerous confounding factors, gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault. On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur,33,57 the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely."

Not very ambiguous. if you are assaulted, and you have a gun, you increase your risk - not reduce it. While it is true that being a nasty bugger might increase your chance of being assaulted, the important point is that having a gun simply puts you more at risk - not less.

[Jason]

Nibbler, the firearms I own have little to do, for the most part, with self-defence. They are tools. Like you might use a stapler to clip papers together, I use a rifle to hunt. Like you may use a hammer to nail, I use a shotgun to split wigs. Er.. yeah.

[rant]Also, WTF is with the rest of the world referring to US citizens as 'Americans'? Canada, Mexico, and the many countries of South America are also 'Americans'. [/rant]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[rant]Also, WTF is with the rest of the world referring to US citizens as 'Americans'? Canada, Mexico, and the many countries of South America are also 'Americans'. [/rant]

It's been that way since the early 1800s at least. I used to care about it, but don't bother now.

[Seth]

That you don't consider a burglary taking place while people are in the residence much more serious than that of an empty house is fucking insanity made manifest.

Exactly the same crime so couldnt give a toss unless someone gets hurt .

Except that the chances of someone getting hurt are greatly magnified precisely because there are occupants in the home. That makes it a worse crime. It's also far more traumatic for the occupants to be burglarized while they are home, as it destroys their sense of home and safety and makes them fearful of what might happen next time. That's something that you, in your deep paranoid state of fearfulness of your fellow citizens, law abiding or otherwise, ought to sympathize with.

Statistics for that however are quite interesting
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

Check page 44 table 2.04 just over a 250 000 domestic burguarlies for the last avaliable data which is high (but down 50% from 10 years ago we need more CCTV cameras) but what is interesting is the number of aggravated burglaries ie those carrying a weapon is just over 1000 which I make to be less than 0.5%. So that makes 99.5% of house occupatants better armed than a typical burgular.

Wonder why that could be perhaps it could be something to do with a first time burgular getting community service or a fine if caught but if they carry a weapon which they won't need as they will be robbing a empty house they will be looking at 10 years +

If they got ten years for burglarizing someone's home the first time, the community would be safe from that burglar for ten whole years.

[Seth]

To Wumbo

Did you read the conclusion from the Branas study. Her eis the first paragraph.

"After we adjusted for numerous confounding factors, gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault. On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur,33,57 the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely."

Not very ambiguous. if you are assaulted, and you have a gun, you increase your risk - not reduce it. While it is true that being a nasty bugger might increase your chance of being assaulted, the important point is that having a gun simply puts you more at risk - not less.

Nope, you misread the sentence, which said that the findings of the Branas study do not support the "perception that such successes are likely." This is weasel wording. First, the author did not say that the findings of the (Branas) study REFUTED the claim that guns are used to successfully thwart crime, nor did he say that the findings found the OPPOSITE, and that defensive gun uses were NOT used to successfully thwart crime. And the author used the weasel phrase "support the PERCEPTION..." (emphasis added) while studiously avoiding the conflicting research studies that prove that firearms are used successfully defensively between 80,000 and 2 million times every year (Kleck et al), he referred to "perceptions" which is so much bullshit evasion.

Successful defensive gun use by law abiding citizens is a fact. You can see six or eight such examples every single month, gleaned from the thousands of such events that occur every month nationwide, in the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column or at their website.

Three days ago, in Colorado Springs, two armed robbers tried to stick up a liquor store. The employees drew their own lawfully-carried handguns and exchanged shots with the robbers, one of whom was shot in the chest and hospitalized, and the other was shot in the ass and sought medical care. Both have been arrested for the crime. "20-year-old Shawn Visiko and 23-year-old Darren Kranes face attempted aggravated robbery charges once they are released from the hospital."

This is but one of millions of examples of law abiding citizens who were NOT the victims of violent criminals only because they had a firearm, which means that you're full of shit.