Today on Blogcritics
Home » Burglary, Child Sex, Arson – All Okay in Britain Under New Rules

Burglary, Child Sex, Arson – All Okay in Britain Under New Rules

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

While violent crime is on the rise in Britain, the police have decided to throw in the towel and give up on arresting and punishing most criminals. Under new guidelines issued to police by the Home Office, crimes which do not result in personal injury or death should now be dealt with not by arrest and punishment, but with the issuance of a ‘caution,’ a criminal citation only slightly worse than a traffic ticket.

While a ‘caution’ does give the recipient a criminal record, he is not required to go before a judge or a jury, and receives neither fine nor prison sentence for his crime. Essentially, by pleading guilty he is let off with a warning and no punishment at all. Under this new rule cautions will be issued for drug possession or sale, sex with a minor, arson, burglary, assault, mugging, auto theft, and a variety of other crimes which had previously been considered jailable offenses.

This new policy has apparently been developed as a result of excessive demand on the courts and prison overcrowding. Concern over these problems has already led to the controversial release of many violent criminals from prison after serving only a fraction of their sentence, including rapists and killers given life sentences released in as little as 15 months.

Under the new Home Office rules you would basically have to kill someone or cause them serious bodily injury to go to prison. Of course, just to own a gun for home defense is still a serious crime, but with gun violence up more than any other single form of crime, no measures are being considered to allow citizens to defend themselves and their property, despite desperate cries for firearm legalization from threatened citizens.

The Home Office has previously tried to conceal the growing crime problem in Britain, which is admittedly still not on the same scale as the dramatic rise in crime in other parts of Europe. They have switched from reporting actual crimes to tracking crime based on surveys of the public, leading to confusion and distortion of crime trends over the last decade. This has created a deceptive impression that crime is stable, when certain types of crime which are no longer being tracked as closely are rising substantially, including all forms of property crime.

The new crime protocols are clearly intended to try to free the courts to deal with violent crime, which makes a certain amount of sense. Yet they do not take into consideration the fact that property crimes, such as burglary of homes and vehicles and robbery of individuals, often involve the threat of violence and can turn into violent incidents very easily. Under these new rules there is virtually nothing to discourage a career criminal from breaking into your home and taking your property or stopping you on the street and taking your wallet — threatening you or even assaulting you if you don’t cooperate.

Thanks to the Bureaucrats of the Home Office, Britons — who were already disarmed and at the mercy of criminals — can no longer even look to the justice system for any kind of protection. Britain has been made a nation of victims through the weakness and of their own government.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Dawn

    Can you please define “sex with a minor”?

  • Pedro Sanchez

    Well…that just put me off going to england

  • Pedro Sanchez

    He means pedophiles or simpler form to have sex with anyone under britain’s legal law.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The Daily Mail article I used as a source doesn’t define it terribly specifically. It says ‘underage sex’ which I take to be the same thing, as sex with a minor means sex with someone under the age of consent, and someone under the age of consent is well, obviously, underage. Every other article I’ve been able to find refers to it the same way. Other sources I’ve checked for information on British sex laws suggest that they are overall much more lenient than the laws in the US regarding sex with minors. There’s actually some debate as to whether getting a caution for underage sex should bar you from teaching children, as discussed in an article in The Economist. That suggests that teacher-student sex would be responded to with a caution, as discussed in my article, so I assume their idea of underage sex and ours aren’t that much different, except in terms of punishment. The legal age of consent in Britain is 16 and it’s 17 in Northern Ireland, so I believe we’re talking in terms of an adult having sex with a child of 15 or younger here.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    And just to clarify even more in case it’s the title which you were wondering about, Dawn. A minor is by definition a child. And I imagine we’d all agree that 15 year olds shouldn’t be having sex with adults or probably with each other either.

    Dave

  • Dawn

    Um, I don’t think anyone who’s spent any time around here thinks of me as a supporter of adults having sex with children.

    But I wanted to clarify that there is a difference between an 18-year old having sex with a 16-year old and some filthy despicable predator.

    Because there is a difference and they should be treated differently.

  • Maurice

    I lived and worked in England for a couple of years in the early 80’s. The night life was wild and drugs were everywhere. Even then the bobbies looked the other way. I guess now they are just making it official.

    One other thing. Do you bring this up because you think we are headed in a similar direction?

  • My Opinion, That’s All

    I was going to go to England one day. But if I can even have the safety of the police, then, what’s the use? I’d be safer in south central LA.

  • http://jswynne.typepad.com/gropes/ Jim Wynne

    If the new law or policy was prompted by the fact that the jails are full, there must be an awful lot of people who weren’t deterred by the threat of incarceration, no?

    What percentage of the people who have been jailed won’t offend again? I know that in the US, recidivism rates are high, but there is a more or less constant number of one-time offenders. If the idea behind jailing people is to convince them that crime doesn’t pay, what sense does it make to jail people who, just by being caught the first time, understand that already?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Jim, the article I linked to earlier from The Economist has information on recidivism in the UK in it. The overall rate is 60%, with auto theft highest at 80% and burglary just slightly below it. If recidivism was that high when they were jailing them I can only imagine that with this policy those criminals will have no motivation at all to reform.

    I don’t see a high recidivism rate as a justification for just giving up on punishing crime alltogether. What you’re essentially saying is that when criminals are persistent we should just give up and let them rob us all they want. While that seems to be the attitude of the Home Office, it seems like the wrong way to go.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    But I wanted to clarify that there is a difference between an 18-year old having sex with a 16-year old and some filthy despicable predator.

    Because there is a difference and they should be treated differently.

    I agree, but one of the problems we have here in the US is that far too often the law doesn’t differentiate between the two. I guess this new policy in the UK solves that problem, but it looks like it also goes too far the other way.

    One other thing. Do you bring this up because you think we are headed in a similar direction?

    Not yet, but I think there’s an important object lesson to be learned here.

    Dave

  • RedTard

    “But I wanted to clarify that there is a difference between an 18-year old having sex with a 16-year old and some filthy despicable predator.”

    What’s the difference? It grosses you out. The same logic used against gays. If you follow the trial of those female teachers having sex with male students you’ll find even in the US the crime only results in community service. If you’re a reasonably attractive female it’s already not that serious of a crime.

    I suppose if you had that ‘filthy, despicable’ look you would end up with jailtime. What you look like, the new basis for our justice system.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Red, in the two most highly publicized cases of female teachers having sex with male students the result was not community service, but years in jail, and in both cases the teachers were quite attractive, and only about 10 years older than the students. Frankly I think that’s ridiculous. When I was 14 I had a really good looking, young teacher. If she’d offered to have sex with me I hardly would have considered myself abused, I’d have thought I was damned lucky.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    This is what happens when the damned courts start ceding ‘rights’ to everyone EXCEPT law-abiding citizens. Maybe it’s time for law-abiding British citizens to start taking justice into their own hands, since the courts & government refuse to.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Sounds about right Nancy. Pity they aren’t allowed to own guns to defend themselves against criminals and their criminal government. The path towards this day of complete social breakdown was laid in 1898 when they first started restricting gun ownership in Britain.

    Dave

  • http://jswynne.typepad.com/gropes/ Jim Wynne

    Dave Nalle said:
    If recidivism was that high when they were jailing them I can only imagine that with this policy those criminals will have no motivation at all to reform.

    Sorry Dave, but that makes no sense. We already know that the majority “…have no motivation to reform.” The only thing we can do with those people is kill them or keep them in jail. But I ask again, what about the minority who don’t reoffend? If there’s no room in the jails, it means that in order to put new ones in, you have to let old ones out. So it seems that what you’re advocating (although you don’t offer a possible solution)is letting out the ones who are most likely to commit crimes in favor of jailing the ones who aren’t.

    Dave Nalle said:
    What you’re essentially saying is that when criminals are persistent we should just give up and let them rob us all they want.

    I’m saying nothing of the kind. The policy (which makes those “cautions” optional, it appears, not mandatory) is to be applied only to people who have admitted guilt and have no criminal record. It does not apply to criminals who are “persistent.” And I’ll reiterate–persistent criminals already “…rob us all they want” even with the threat of incarceration.

  • http://murasaki.blog-city.com Purple Tigress

    Dave:

    Would you also have felt damned lucky if you got an STD from your hot teacher or had a child to support as a result?

    Hopefully, if you have kids, your kids won’t be so damned lucky and you won’t be making some 14-year-old feel damned lucky.

    One of the reasons to prevent children from having sexual relations is because there is a belief that they will not be legally aware of the responsibilities connected with the act. Similarly, contracts between children and adults are not valid and we have attractive nuisance laws that place more responsibility on adults because we do not expect children to exercise due care.

  • Lumpy

    Great reminder of how far we here in the US have separated from the mother country and what a perfect example of how being adjacent to europe breeds decadence and foolishness.

    And tigress. You’ve clearly never been a 14 year old boy. He might have regrets down the road, but at the time bedding a hot teacher actually would literally be a dream come true. Can any guy on here tell me i’m wrong?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    You’re wrong if you think every 14 year old boy is exactly the same. I was not the most socially advanced 14 year old, but I knew enough about what’s appropriate and what isn’t that it would have completely shocked me to hear of any sexual relationship between a teacher and a student, much less having one make advances toward me personally.

    I find it peculiarly ironic that you would express support for sexual relationships between adult women and 14 year old boys, in the very same comment where you condemn Europe for being decadent and foolish.

  • Lumpy

    I only endorsed it from the perspective of the horny 14yr old boy. For society and his community and everyone else it seems like a bad idea and certainly condoning it would be pretty decadent. But in the real world 14yr olds will inevitably be trying to hump anything that moves and the rest of us will be trying to stop them.

  • Dave Nalle

    Sorry Dave, but that makes no sense. We already know that the majority “…have no motivation to reform.” The only thing we can do with those people is kill them or keep them in jail. But I ask again, what about the minority who don’t reoffend? If there’s no room in the jails, it means that in order to put new ones in, you have to let old ones out. So it seems that what you’re advocating (although you don’t offer a possible solution)is letting out the ones who are most likely to commit crimes in favor of jailing the ones who aren’t.

    Huh? The new policy in Britain is to not put any of these people in jail whether they’d reoffend or not. My preference would be to lock up those likely to reoffend and give the ones who can be reformed a break. But given that the large majority reoffend on certain significant crimes, it might be better to err on the side of caution. Going the otherway and punishing no one certainly isn’t the solution.

    Dave

  • http://www.co2emissions.org.uk Hoggle

    The standard of reporting at the Daily Mail is only slightly higher than it is here.

    The home office policy, which can be found here, states that
    “A Simple Caution (known as a formal caution in previous Home Office Circulars, now renamed to distinguish it from a Conditional Caution) is a non-statutory disposal for adult offenders. It may be used for cases involving first time, low level offences where the public interest can be met by a Simple Caution.”

    It is an optional action that can be taken, and is limited to situations where the public interest is served. It is still possible (even likely) that anyone suspected of a crime that justifies a jail term will be sent for trial.

    The Daily Mail has a campaign to discredit the police and alarm its readers and should not be considered a serious source of information on the subject.

    The true picture is:
    • Overall crime has fallen by seven per cent according to the BCS. There has also been a fall of six per cent in the number of crimes recorded by the police in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04.
    • Based on BCS interviews taking place in 2004/05, it is estimated that there were approximately 10.8 million crimes against adults living in private households.
    • Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing 8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this period.
    • The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995 to 24 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2004/05, representing almost six million fewer victims. This is the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981.
    • Violent crime has decreased by 11 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04. Recorded crime statistics show a seven per cent increase in violent crime in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04, although this increase is partly due to the continuing effect of recording changes.
    source

    As for the remarks concerning guns, I for one am very glad that guns are hard to get hold of in Britain. Comparing the murder rates for UK and US will make it clear why. The ‘right to bear arms’ is a moronic law/ammendment that should have been repealed at the turn of the last century.

    This shows that the US is the 24th most dangerous country, for murder, and the UK is 46th. The firearm murder list puts the US at 8th and the UK at the bottom of the list at 32nd. Similarly, the US has more than twice as many rapes per capita as the UK and (slightly) more assaults. All of this despite having an average sentence length nearly double that of the UK.

    But please, don’t let facts get in the way of bigotry.

  • Lumpy

    to the individual who’s life is saved because he has a gun to defend himself your argument about relative crime rates will mean very little. Same for the individual bludgeoned to death when a legal gun might have saved him.

    The US is overall a somewhat more violent society than the UK and its cultural and has nothing to do with guns. If you put together statistics of shootings per gun owned’ the UK has hundreds of times the shootings per gun of the US. What matters is not the gun crime but the number of crimes prevented by gunsM which is almost none in the UK and a hell of a lot in the US.

    And what kind of a silly way to compile crime statistics is it to do it based on polls. The sad commentary here is that the justice system can’t record and compile accurate statistics based on arrests and convictions.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The true picture is:
    • Overall crime has fallen by seven per cent according to the BCS. There has also been a fall of six per cent in the number of crimes recorded by the police in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04.

    Of course overall crime was UP 11% in 2004 according to the BCS, so over the 2 year span it’s basically ahead 5%. Plus, the last BCS report actually said crime was down 5%, so you’re off by 1%. In addition, a compilation of actual crime figures from the home office shows crime overall down only 2% last year, which means crime is up over the past 2 years by over 9%. What’s more, both the BCS and Home Office statistics show that violent crime was up in 2005 as well as 2004, with a 7% increase in 2005. BTW, this info is from the BBC, not the Daily Mail.

    So the truth is that crime is indeed on the rise in Britain, especially violent crime.

    • Based on BCS interviews taking place in 2004/05, it is estimated that there were approximately 10.8 million crimes against adults living in private households.

    That’s an enormous number of crimes. In 2004 therte were only 11.7 million crimes in the US. By my calculation of the number of crimes relative to the population that puts the crime rate in the UK enormously higher than in the US. That’s a 18% crime rate in the UK and a 4% crime rate in the US. Is it possible that your 10.8 million figure is incorrect?

    I have stats for comparison on violent crimes. In the UK last year there were about 318,000 violent crimes. In the US in the same period there were about 1.3 million violent crimes. That makes the violent crime rate in the UK .53% and the violent crime rate in the US .45%, again that’s a higher rate of violent crime for the UK than for the US. Just so you know, the US figures are from disastercenter.com and the UK figures are from the BBC.

    So contrary to what you’re saying here, the truth is that the rate of violent crime is higher in the UK than in the US, and the rate of crime overall is ENORMOUSLY higher in the UK than in the US, suggesting that property crime there is literally totally out of control – the type of crime that gun ownership deters highly effecrtively.

    • Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing 8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this period.

    In that same period overall crime in the US has fallen 29% and violent crime has fallen by 43%. Since US overall crime was already so much lower it’s not surprising that it fell by less. These fairly comparable figures suggest that it is not the UK’s gun control or our counter trend of expanding gun rights – like concealed carry – which is primarily responsible for the change. Except, of course, that all of the states which enacted concealed carry showed more dramatic decline in crime rates than states in the US which did not.

    As for the remarks concerning guns, I for one am very glad that guns are hard to get hold of in Britain. Comparing the murder rates for UK and US will make it clear why.

    This would be the only area where you’re on target. There are about twice as many murders per capita in the US as in the UK. This, BTW is the ONLY area in which your assessment of relative crime rates is correct.

    The ‘right to bear arms’ is a moronic law/ammendment that should have been repealed at the turn of the last century.

    The right to bear arms is the main reason why every form of crime is lower in the US except for murder, and that is only higher by 4 deaths per 100,000 people.

    This shows that the US is the 24th most dangerous country, for murder, and the UK is 46th. The firearm murder list puts the US at 8th and the UK at the bottom of the list at 32nd. Similarly, the US has more than twice as many rapes per capita as the UK and (slightly) more assaults

    Actually, the US has only about 45% more rapes per capita. As for other assaults, assuming we’re talking about non-sexual assault, the US assault rate is .29% and the assault rate in the UK is .43%, that’s about 50% more assaults in the UK. And I guarantee you don’t want to compare property crime rates. But wait, I do. 3.5% in the US vs. 7.7% in the UK. More than double.

    Yes, the US has a bit more rape and murder than the UK per capita. But those are both relatively rare crimes compared to assault and property crimes, both of which the UK is significantly higher in. What this demonstrates is that the US and the UK have made different lifestyle choices. Amercans have chosen to pay the price of 4 more murders per 100,000 population for the reward of 4000 fewer property crimes per 100,000 people. Whether 1 murder is worth 1000 property crimes is debatable, but when you consider how many of those property crimes might have led to violence the choice makes some sense.

    But please, don’t let facts get in the way of bigotry.

    I certainly won’t. But I encourage you to let the correct crime statistics modify your rather skewed view of reality.

    And Lumpy does have a good point about how we ought perhaps to be tracking crimes prevented by private gun ownership. That being 0 in Britain and quite a few in the US.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    gun nuts fuck off. look at the damn stats. if you allow guns in your society, someone with a gun will more likely kill you. kill. you. duh. our gun crime rates are astronomical compared to britain’s. what, were you cleaning your gun when all this happened? grow up, you collectors. buy baseball cards or something. i likes my gunz…

    so, if you are two times more likely to get raped in america, why do you think that is? maybe it’s because we’re pervs. (i kinda want to move to britain, because i am a perv.) maybe it’s because the motherfucking perverts have fucking guns! you can’t run from a gun. rape is much easier when you incorporate bullets.

    “What matters is not the gun crime but the number of crimes prevented by guns.” WHAT? that is the most hilarious circular logic i have ever seen. you fucked.

    okay, the polls thing we can agree about. “yeah, i got mugged just las ev’ning, off’cer. they stole 15 quid from me pockets… 15 quid for me daughter’s school lunches…”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, did you not even bother to read the last comment before you started typing your yellow dog craziness?

    We have less crime than Britain in almost every category and overall. Enormously less as far as propertty crime and general violent crime. Rape and murder – which are both very rare crimes comparataively – are the only areas they do better than we do.

    In crimes which impact literally millions of victims gun ownership has helped reduce our crime rate substantially. In crimes which impact a few thousand guns may have contributed to a very small proportion of increase. You do the math.

    Like I said before, Americans have made the lifestyle choice that we’d rather have enormously less property crime and pay for it with a few more murder victims. Go back and read #24.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave, i wrote my comment before your comment went up. shut it.

    okay, so you won’t get robbed so easily. oh no.

    tell me this: next time there is a mass murder, what kind of weapon would you put your money on as the murder weapon? hmm?

    “Americans have made the lifestyle choice that we’d rather have enormously less property crime and pay for it with a few more murder victims.”

    see? that’s FUCKING FUCKED UP LOGIC. that is so goddamn stupid. if you are murdered, what the fuck does your goddamn property matter? shit!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dave, moya drugi,

    Sounds to me like “A Clockwork Orange” was not a science fiction story at all, but a warning for a future that has arrived.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Or is that mnyeh drugi? My Russian is pathetic…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Mnyah druga preserves agreement in number of the noun and personal pronoun. Drugoi would be plural. Or at least that’s how I remember it from when I actually spoke the damned language.

    It remains to be seen if this new leniency will be coupled with reprogramming with eyelid clamps and all the modern accoutrements.

    And despite what Hoggle said earlier, this new directive DOES represent a significant increase in leniency in that it encourages police to be far less aggresssive and to exercise the optional nature of enforcement even more.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, you seem to have an issue with finding logic to be ‘fucked up’.

    okay, so you won’t get robbed so easily. oh no.

    The point you are missing here is that every robbery is a situation which could turn violent. Every break in at a house where people are home could lead to those people being killed or injured and every mugging involves the threat of force which is often followed through on. More robberies means more potential for violence. Fewer robberies is inherently safer for all.

    tell me this: next time there is a mass murder, what kind of weapon would you put your money on as the murder weapon? hmm?

    Poisoned Kool-Aid? A bomb? An airplane? A gun really isn’t well suited to efficient, large-scale murder. It’s too noisy, too scary for the victims and not as efficient as other methods. Plus in America all it takes is one armed, competent victim with a gun to shut you down.

    Are you familiar with the story of Texas State Legislator Susanna Hupp? If not, check out this article based on her court testimony. She addresses your concern about mass murder from a first-hand perspective.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    i don’t mean hundreds. or thousands. those are too rare. i’m talking 3 or 4 or 6 or something. like the one in seattle a couple of weeks ago.

    as for your inherently violent argument, what’s more violent than a gun? and if fewer people had guns, fewer people would get shot in robberies where no guns are present… it’s a circular argument. you say that they already have the guns, i say, well, take them away. you say we have to protect ourselves from other peoples guns, i say if they didn’t have the damn things in the first place, then you wouldn’t need a gun to protect you.

    either way you look at it, it’s the snake eating its own tail.

    you think people are the problem, i think guns are the problem. i can take care of people. i can’t take care of a gun.

  • zingzing

    and yeah, your logic is fucked up. your perspective is fucked up. i think you are fucked up. maybe that’s because i’m the one who is fucked up. but, whatever.

    i can’t see anything good about guns. where’s that statistic about you being just as likely to kill a family member as you are an intruder?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    as for your inherently violent argument, what’s more violent than a gun?

    Odd, my gun is an innanimate object. It just sits there and does nothing at all, even when loaded. It doesn’t shoot, doesn’t beat people, doesn’t even make threatening gestures. It’s made of metal and can’t do a single thing without a human being picking it up and using it. You can kill someone with a shovel. Is it inherently violent? The act of digging certainly seems violent, but is that violence inherent in the shovel?

    and if fewer people had guns, fewer people would get shot in robberies where no guns are present… it’s a circular argument. you say that they already have the guns, i say, well, take them away. you say we have to protect ourselves from other peoples guns, i say if they didn’t have the damn things in the first place, then you wouldn’t need a gun to protect you.

    Except that there is no practical way to take the guns away from criminals, plus they have a huge deterrent value in discouraging crimes. Criminals may not fear jail time, but they DO fear an armed homeowner.

    you think people are the problem, i think guns are the problem. i can take care of people. i can’t take care of a gun.

    I think you have this exactly backwards. You can’t actually control the people. They’re the random factor. The gun is entirely predictable.

    i can’t see anything good about guns. where’s that statistic about you being just as likely to kill a family member as you are an intruder?

    That’s a matter of situational training. Accidental firearm fatalities are down to under 300 a year in the US, down 75% from where they were 75 years ago. Studies suggest that firearms prevent somewhere around 700,000 crimes a year in the US. You might want to take a look at this collection of studies on the impact of guns on crime.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    what else does a gun do but shoot bullets? your argument is crap. what else is the fucking thing for?

    if you make all guns illegal, guns will gradually disappear. not altogether, but most.

    i meant that there is nothing i can do to stop a gun. if someone fires a gun at me, they will probably kill me. if someone throws a punch, i’ll be alright.

    i like this stat from ichv.org:
    In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

    * 373 people in Germany
    * 151 people in Canada
    * 57 people in Australia
    * 19 people in Japan
    * 54 people in England and Wales, and
    * 11,789 people in the United States

    funny, eh? that’s good old murder, not accidental deaths, not suicides. m-u-r-d-e-r. your 700,000 petty thefts don’t have shit on my 12,000 corpses.

    also there’s the fact that keeping a gun in your home increases the chances of a family member being murdered by almost 3 times, and it is 5 times as likely that someone in your family will kill themselves. i’m sure you can find that in the same spot.

    i will never own or shoot a gun. because i don’t want to die, and i don’t want my friends and family to die.

    it’s not a perfect world. think of your argument on a world level. do you want iran having nukes? prolly not. don’t like the idea. why do they want nukes? because they are afraid of us. what’s the solution? get rid of all the nukes! will it happen? nah… people suck. should iran have nukes? fuck, no. just because there is no solution to the problem doesn’t mean it’s a fucking mess that we got ourselves into. well, not “we.” just the stupid wankers who want to play around with weapons. then again, go back to that statistic. 54 gun murders? damn… that’s PRETTY FUCKING LOW!

  • zingzing

    ahem: Just because there is no solution to the problem doesn’t mean it’s NOT a fucking mess that we got ourselves into.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    what else does a gun do but shoot bullets? your argument is crap. what else is the fucking thing for?

    The function of a gun is indeed to shoot bullets, but it will not shoot them without a human hand to pull the trigger.

    if you make all guns illegal, guns will gradually disappear. not altogether, but most.

    Except that every case where prohibition of guns or other substances has been tried it has not worked. Even in the UK with their stringent gun controls there are substantial number of handgun deaths.

    i like this stat from ichv.org:
    In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

    No, handguns did NOT murder anyone. People murdered other people and happened to use guns to do it.

    * 373 people in Germany
    * 151 people in Canada
    * 57 people in Australia
    * 19 people in Japan
    * 54 people in England and Wales, and
    * 11,789 people in the United States

    The term ‘murder’ is incorrect here. The number you quote for the US refers specifically to gun homicide – that’s a figure for all people killed by guns, not those who are murdered. Murder is an intentional act. Homicide is a much broader category which includes manslaughter, self-defense accidents and other deaths involving guns. Over half of the handgun homicides in the US are classed as defense of self, others or property and considered justifiable homicide, not murder.

    funny, eh? that’s good old murder, not accidental deaths, not suicides. m-u-r-d-e-r. your 700,000 petty thefts don’t have shit on my 12,000 corpses.

    As I pointed out, it’s more like 5,000 actual murders. The rest are mostly crimes prevented by defensive use of guns. And calling property crimes ‘petty’ shows that you live pretty isolated from the real world. You’re also minimizing all the other crimes guns prevent, including numerous rapes and potential murders. Plus, every mugging or burglary is a potential murder and the less people are able to defend themselves the worse the violence gets.

    also there’s the fact that keeping a gun in your home increases the chances of a family member being murdered by almost 3 times, and it is 5 times as likely that someone in your family will kill themselves. i’m sure you can find that in the same spot.

    Yes, there are all sorts of fictional statistics on gun control sites. They routinely make up numbers to support their positions which are wildly different from the real numbers, as demonstrated from the figures you reference above which compare murder figures in the other countries with homicide figures for the US. In addition, you can’t consider gun deaths out of the context of overall violent death, because where guns are absent other causes of death increase to compensate.

    You might want to spend some time on the Department of Justice website to get some real figures, or even use guncite.com, where I refer you to this study which debunks the causal relationship between guns and the suicide rate.

    i will never own or shoot a gun. because i don’t want to die, and i don’t want my friends and family to die.

    If you’re so unstable that you think that your ownership or use of a gun will lead to you killing friends and family, then I’d definitely stay away from them.

    (completely irrelevant iranian nuke issue ignored)

    All I see here is irrational fear driving an extreme, biased and unrealistic attack on gun rights. Pretty much a microcosm of the entire attack on gun ownership.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    M’nyoi drugoi,

    Having lived in America for several decades, and now living in Israel, I have to observe that culture and attitude towards weapons makes a real difference in murder rates.

    In the 1998 numbers that Zingzing cited, of the 12 thousand and some change deaths from handguns, over 11 thousand were in the United States. That says something about the attitude towards weapons there.

    I have no solutions and pretend to none. But two Israeli (Jews), both of whom carry heat, can get into a shouting match here without anyone so much as imagining pulling a handgun. I do not think this would be true in America.

  • Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, I’m not sure the scenario you describe at the end of your comment would end in violence in most cases in the US. That sort of on the street shootout is extremely uncommon except among gang members where they go out looking to shoot each other in the first place. Two CCL carriers meeting on the street and arguing are NOT going to shoot each other. They are about the most law abiding and non-violent people in the country. In the first 7 years of CCL in Florida they had only 4 incidents involving license holders.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    wow. i agree with ruvy again. maybe other countries can hold guns, but not america. we are too weak for it.

    dave–your excuses for guns are weak. you keep up with the n.r.a. bullshit excuses and ignore the facts that guns are used to kill, nothing else. you dismiss my arguments as fantasy, when i see you scratching your nuts with a loaded pistol and thinking all is well.

    and what about the iranian comment was irrelevant? the killing potential? the deterrant argument? the obvious correlation?

    pussy. come on.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, your hatred of America and your delusional denial of facts seem to go hand inhand. There’s nothing in what I’ve posted from the NRA. The data is taken from objective sources and yet you continue to deny and deny.

    The fact is that the US is ideally suited to public gun ownership because we have the cultural background and experience to deal with guns maturely and responsibly. In fact, the more accessible guns are the better for peace and safety in society.

    I know you just ignore all the facts I provide, but here’s one last one for you to think about.

    Florida passed the Concealed Carry law in 1987. During the next decade the national homicide rate went down by .4%. The homicide rate in Florida went down over that decade by 36%. During that decade the firearm homicide rate nationwide went up by 15%. In Florida in that same period the firearm homicide rate went down by 37%.

    The availability of guns in the hands of responsible and trained citizens deters crime, regardless of how many ill-informed denials you choose to make.

    Dave

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    “The fact is that the US is ideally suited to public gun ownership because we have the cultural background and experience to deal with guns maturely and responsibly. In fact, the more accessible guns are the better for peace and safety in society.”

    Somebody call the Guiness World Records team, Dave’s excelled himself!

    After a considerable break for laughter, I’ve recovered enough to remind Dave, not for the first time, that it doesn’t seem beyond the wit and wisdom of the most powerful country in the world to disarm a relatively small bunch of criminals.

    This would remove most of your current favourite justification for owning a weapon regardless of how many ill-informed justifications you choose to make.

    Your excessive and presumptious zeal in favour of all things American and its way of life as somehow preferable or superior is as predictable and misplaced as it is tedious and frankly not a little offensive.

    I’d like to see a little more zeal for objective reality you claim to endorse rather than this partisan position you appear to hold but never quite seem to be able to come to terms with.

    Puzzled of Manchester

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    After a considerable break for laughter, I’ve recovered enough to remind Dave, not for the first time, that it doesn’t seem beyond the wit and wisdom of the most powerful country in the world to disarm a relatively small bunch of criminals.

    I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. We do disarm our criminals. It is illegal for a convicted felon to own a firearm even after they have served their jail term.

    Personally I think we ought to automatically increase all criminal sentences for crimes in which a gun was used, and I think that will eventually happen.

    The answer to gun crime is not to go after the guns, but to go after the criminal and punish the crime.

    The problem is that as demonstrated in Britain, you can disarm the public, but that doesn’t disarm the criminals, all it does is make it easier for them to abuse their victims in safety.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave–yes, i hate america. thank you. fuck america. land of worthless people.

    you are so full of shit sometimes.

    you go and own your gun, you point it at people. you point that fucking thing in the wrong person’s face, they’re going to put you in the ground. ever heard of a culture of violence? yeah, well, you contribute. every single gun (death mechanism that it is) contributes. a gun is a delivery system for a bullet into someone/thing who doesn’t want it. if you want to use a gun on yourself, go for it. but when you point that thing at anyone else, just remember the look on their face. it’s going to be on yours pretty soon.

    i feel my chances of dying by a gun are significantly lower than yours are. should you use it in self-defense, chances are the other idiot will have a gun as well. if you kill that person, the guilt (hey–you just killed someone) might drive you to use it on yourself. should you become angry with your significant other, you have the option to blow her fucking head off. should your child (god forbid…) get ahold of said gun, they might kill themself (i had a friend in middle school who was found all over his driveway). i, on the other hand, have only seen one gun in my life. i don’t plan on seeing another. if i do, i think that i’d rather be long gone rather than standing there, quaking with fear, trying to decide if i should take another person’s life.

    there are good and bad points to guns. the “good” ones are relatively few and only relative to the fact that guns exist in our society at all. the “bad” ones are things like death, murder, crime, assasination, suicide, threats, violence, gangs, snipers, execution, etc.

    by the way– i don’t hate america. i don’t want to kill anything in it. my hatred for america… you’re laughable. guns are not an american way of life. they are an american mistake.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, your mindless fear and irrationality largely speak for themselves. Your attitude towards guns just doesn’t make any sense. It’s a pathological condition.

    I had a friend in school who committed suicide too. He didn’t need a gun to do it and he’s just as dead.

    you go and own your gun, you point it at people. you point that fucking thing in the wrong person’s face, they’re going to put you in the ground.

    This is exactly what you don’t get. I don’t point my gun at people. Ever. I’m properly trained and know how to use a gun. That includes not pointing it at people unless you are willing to shoot them and end their lives.

    ever heard of a culture of violence? yeah, well, you contribute. every single gun (death mechanism that it is) contributes. a gun is a delivery system for a bullet into someone/thing who doesn’t want it. if you want to use a gun on yourself, go for it. but when you point that thing at anyone else, just remember the look on their face. it’s going to be on yours pretty soon.

    You just don’t get it at all. You don’t NEED to point a gun at anyone. The fact that people own them and could use them provides the deterrent effect which discourages crim, especially when concealed carry is an option. Despite CCL being legal in Texas I don’t even carry a gun. I don’t need to. The fact that I could be carrying one is enough to deter a lot of criminals.

    i feel my chances of dying by a gun are significantly lower than yours are. should you use it in self-defense, chances are the other idiot will have a gun as well. if you kill that person, the guilt (hey–you just killed someone) might drive you to use it on yourself. should you become angry with your significant other, you have the option to blow her fucking head off.

    Do you get the fact that none of the things you talk about here are caused by the gun, but by dysfunctional people?

    should your child (god forbid…) get ahold of said gun, they might kill themself

    My children are properly instructed and know never to touch a gun.

    Problems with guns come from those who are ignorant and who approach them with irrational fear. I’m glad you don’t have a gun. You’d be a danger to yourself and others. But it’s to your credit that you realize you lack the responsibility and stability to own a gun.

    there are good and bad points to guns. the “good” ones are relatively few and only relative to the fact that guns exist in our society at all. the “bad” ones are things like death, murder, crime, assasination, suicide, threats, violence, gangs, snipers, execution, etc.

    Sniper deaths in the US are virtually non-existent, and no one is even considering banning long-guns. And we haven’t executed anyone by firing squad in at least 40 years. All the other things you cite are prevented by guns more than they are facilitated.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    let’s agree to disagree. i think you’re dangerous to society. you think i’m fearful. well, i am. i hate guns, and i can’t believe that america has let this thing go one for so long that we have to have a gun in order to feel safe from all the guns that are around. it’s fear that drives the second amendment. and now it’s fear that drives the people who want to ban guns. you say that owning a gun means you won’t get shot by one. i’m saying that not have guns around means you won’t get shot by one. you could look at either side.

    but the fact that you don’t think guns are dangerous, or even increase the danger of the dangerous people out there, just shows how closely you cuddle with your fucking gun at night.

    i find your reasoning irrational. it just doesn’t jive. you don’t decrease the danger of violence by facilitating and furthering the reality of its existence.

    but whatever. i think you’ve got your gun too far up your butt to see it for what it is. and i’m sure you think i just don’t want to understand. i do. but i can’t.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, how did you know I cuddle with my gun at night? I was actually sleeping with one of my guns hanging from my bedpost recently during a rash of crank-head burglaries in our neighborhood.

    But I don’t think it’s fear that drives the second amendment except maybe fear of an oppressive government. In the main I think it’s a desire to be self reliant, which includes self defense, and that’s a basic American value.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    learn karate dave. you try the self-defense thing. if you win, good for you. if you lose… a loaded gun is a bit like a loaded gun.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    So it’s okay if I beat someone to death with my bare hands? What if the criminal who shows up at my door has a gun and mine has been seized by the state? Oh well, guess I can enjoy being a victim. Or I can try my karate on him and get shot and be dead. Frankly I’d prefer a situation where he ends up dead and my family and myself remain aiive.

    And just for the record I have trained in several martial arts both with and without weapons.

    Dave

  • My Opinion, That’s All

    Oh, what a scene! I can see the headlines now: “Man Stops Bandit’s Bullet Using Karate Chop”. I wonder if Chuck Norris could stop a bullet or six?

  • My opinion, That’s All

    Nothing Protects Like Smith & Wesson.

    I am also trained in fire arms from assault rifles to 9mm. Being a smaller woman, I know I couldn’t stop a guy breaking into my house. I feel safer knowing I have a fire arm hidden somewhere in my house.

  • Rufus

    Is this where I can win a new computer?

  • MCH

    “And just for the record I have trained in several martial arts both with and without weapons.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Nalle, you remind me of the big, loud-mouthed bully in “Karate Kid” that the quiet, little old man (Pat Morita) chopped to pieces…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    College sports requirement, MCH. Had to spend 1 credit hour a semester doing some sort of physical education activity for two years. Plus my mom was a competitive fencer and encouraged me to take fencing classes in Russia, and I carried on for several years back in the states. I guess I could bully you with a rapier if I had to. They can leave nasty welts on the backs of your legs.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Oh, what a scene! I can see the headlines now: “Man Stops Bandit’s Bullet Using Karate Chop”. I wonder if Chuck Norris could stop a bullet or six?

    I’ve seen a guy catch bullets in his teeth, so I guess it’s possible. Wouldn’t want to try it myself.

    I am also trained in fire arms from assault rifles to 9mm. Being a smaller woman, I know I couldn’t stop a guy breaking into my house. I feel safer knowing I have a fire arm hidden somewhere in my house.

    I believe zing and the British government would prefer that you just hide in a closet and let your house get robbed.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “Had to spend 1 credit hour a semester doing some sort of physical education activity for two years. Plus my mom was a competitive fencer and encouraged me to take fencing classes in Russia, and I carried on for several years back in the states. I guess I could bully you with a rapier if I had to. They can leave nasty welts on the backs of your legs.”
    – Dave Nalle

    You got the easy part done, Nalle. Everybody has a plan until they get hit.

    It doesn’t surprise me that the same guy who WRITES/TALKS about military invasions, also feels the need to WRITE/TALK about how tough he thinks he is…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, I’ve got to be prepared. I never know when a nutcase from the internet who keeps making unmerited personal attacks might come down here and try to kidnap my family for some reason that only makes sense in their squirrel-like brain.

    But of course, just like I’ve never supported military invasion as a national policy, I’ve also never claimed to be a king fu master or all that tough. Like most of your bizarre beliefs those things are entirely in your head.

    Dave

  • My Opinion, That’s All

    Catching bullet with one’s teeth would wreak havoc one one’s dental plan! I bet this guy buys stock in bullet-roof dentures.

  • sr

    Holy crap. I remember the term raining cats and dogs. Now It’s raining dip-stick liberals. Not sure where to jump in on this thread. For those who have read my past comments you know my direction and it wont be pleasent. Excellent blog Dave. GLOCKS ROCK. sr. See you later. El Stupido Away.

  • MCH

    “Holy crap. I remember the term raining cats and dogs. Now It’s raining dip-stick liberals.”
    – sr

    So true, so true. Those “dip-stick liberals” are far worse than those chicken hawk conservatives.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Appreciate it, SR. But I have to say that Glocks are plastic crap with no style at all and only popular because of the kickbacks they give law enforcement. Give me a Colt 1911 instead anytime.

    And it’s always raining dip-stick liberals. Some call it ‘The Devil’s Rain’, but to me that will always just be a bad movie with Ernest Borgnine as an Amishman.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    A week or two ago we had target practice for our pistols (little tiny Barettas) and I was looking over some serious gear – a serious business pistol that could bring down anybody. Saw a lot of nice stuff from Czechoslovakia. Ah, if only I had the money…

  • Dave Nalle

    Doesn’t the ridiculously bulky and powerful Desert Eagle originate in Israel, Ruvy?

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Maybe, Dave I don’t know. We did develop the Galil (based on the Kalashnikov), but that’s a rifle, unfortunately no longer in production. I would have liked to see dome native brands for sale in the shop I went to, but didn’t.

    I saw a heavy duty Beretta, a Glock and this Czech gun whose name I forgot.

  • sr

    Dear Dave,

    Love the Colt 1911. Spent many years with this beautiful creature. No plastic in Glocks. It’s called Polimer. Not even close to plastic. I own several Glock’s. All 45ACP. Shoot at my club range often. To own a Glock, to shoot a Glock, and to carry a Glock is better then sex. Of course Im sixty something yrs old. What would I know about sex. I’ll take the Glock. Just dont tell my wife Dave. Glocks also will not rust if your caught in a downpour [Edited]. Just ask Ernest Borgnine. GLOCKS ROCK.

  • Dave Nalle

    What, no Uzis, Ruvy?

    SR, ‘polymer’ is fancy talk for plastic. There are all kinds of plastic. The Glock is probably made with something equivalent to high tensile nylon, which is a pretty good material. I still like a heavier gun.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dave, an Uzi is like a light Beretta, only shooting bullets a lot faster. It lets you throw a grenade with one hand while shooting with the other. I don’t have any grenades.

    I like a gun that does the job in one shot. I may not have time for a second.

    Sr, are you SURE that playing with a Glock is better than sex? If the whole male sex becomes persuaded of this notion, this will be the last generation of mankind.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I know, Ruvy, but it is manufactured in Israel, so it’s a local product.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I decided to Google up pistols manufactured in Israel – found a really interesting bunch of items – led by the Desert Eagle. One of these days I’m going to have to spend a whole morning in a gun shop learning about the locally made guns – I fear sooner than later…

  • sr

    OK Dave, I’ll except plastic. The 1911 and Glock will do what’s necessary. Send a 45ACP Golden or Silver Saber round at the intended target. I also use 45ACP Shotshells. It allows for target acquisition if the wiskey get’s in your way.

    Ruvy, I am the last generation of mankind. Spent to many years with my Glock. Would love to have an Uzi. If you would like Elvira will send you some grenades. Just seeing if she watching this.

    Ruvy, The Desert Eagle. Thats some serious deniro. If I ever win the lottery big time I will buy one for you, Dave and me. That’s a promise.

    Someday I will talk about my other great love. The AK 47. Full auto at night with tracers. Thats serious sex.

    Commenting about firearms and wiskey I have no clue what this frecking blog is about. Pit Bulls I think. GLOCKS RULE.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Shot shells will destroy your barrel, SR. But I do look forward to getting my Desert Eagle. Or if you will, make it a .577 Webley Boxer instead. Might as well have absolutely ridiculous firepower.

    Dave

  • sr

    Dave, been around firearms all my life but what the heck is a .577 Webley Boxer? I know what a barbara boxer is. Think it’s some kind of liberal bitch senator from Gayfrisco or something like that. Didn’t she if I recall had a thing going on with that East coast senator. Teddy something.

    Will debate shot shells another day.

    Wish I could tell you and Ruvy your Desert Eagle is in the mail. If that was so Dave, We would be flying on EL Israel at my expense to meet up with Ruvy. Then we can try out our better then sex Desert Eagle’s at Ruvy’s gun range. Is that a plan or what? Holy Kosher Batman.

  • Dave Nalle

    Dave, been around firearms all my life but what the heck is a .577 Webley Boxer? I know what a barbara boxer is. Think it’s some kind of liberal bitch senator from Gayfrisco or something like that. Didn’t she if I recall had a thing going on with that East coast senator. Teddy something.

    She couldn’t even pick up one of these. If she fired it she’d be looking for her arm somewhere behind her.

    The Boxer is one of several pistols built around the .577 cartridge which was used in big game rifles starting in the 1870s on. There are .577 and .600 versions of the Desert Eagle, but the Desert Eagle is a modern automatic. I want a Boxer because it’s a classic Wild West era gun for Cowboy Action Shooting. It’s basically a relatively compact revolver with a short, extremely fat cartridge. Here’s a link to a drawing of the Boxer and a link to a drawing of the cartridge. Note that the cartridge is 1.8cm or so in diameter. I can tell you one would cost WAY more than a Desert Eagle. Cartridges cost $5 or more each if you can find them.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    mhhmm. you want to be a cowboy. a cowboy who could blow a bull’s head off at 50 paces. yes. and you live where?

  • Dave Nalle

    Texas, of course, Zing. Where else?

    Dave

  • zingzing

    oh yeah. forgot. you can be a cowboy then. just don’t leave texas.

  • sr

    Dave, After checking the link’s on the .577 Boxer I looked it up in my Illustrated Book of GUNS. Would not want to be at the receiving end of this Hog. Think this thing would take down an African elephant. As for Barbie Doll Boxer she would not know which end the barrel is on.

    Dave, do you belong to SASS. (Single Action Shooting Society)? I also own and shoot an 1860 44cal Army and the 1851 44cal Navy cap and ball revolvers. Use black powder only. Love all that smoke. Not the clean up after. Are you familar with the 44cal black powder Walker Revolver? It’s a beast. It’s on my want list.

    And to think the Brit’s need a licence to posess a squirt gun.

    zingzing, at 50 paces to take a bull’s head off it would require something on the order of the 50 cal. Another gun on my wish list. YEE HAW. sr

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave, After checking the link’s on the .577 Boxer I looked it up in my Illustrated Book of GUNS. Would not want to be at the receiving end of this Hog. Think this thing would take down an African elephant. As for Barbie Doll Boxer she would not know which end the barrel is on.

    I think that because of the shortness of the cartridge it wouldn’t be that powerful. Probably not much more powerful than a .44 magnum. The rifle version is a .577/450 which will shoot through just about anything.

    Dave, do you belong to SASS. (Single Action Shooting Society)?

    Yep, though I don’t have time to go to many shooting events these days.

    I also own and shoot an 1860 44cal Army and the 1851 44cal Navy cap and ball revolvers. Use black powder only. Love all that smoke. Not the clean up after. Are you familar with the 44cal black powder Walker Revolver? It’s a beast. It’s on my want list.

    I have a 1851 Navy and a ’47 Walker. Both reproductions for shooting safety. The Walker might be better for clubbing people to death than shooting. For a cap and ball pistol I prefer a 44 cal Remington. The action is a lot smoother, plus it will take an adapted cylinder and shoot .45LC, which is quite cool.

    Dave

  • MCH

    Any truth to the rumor that a gun is just an extension of the penis?

  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070948/quotes Zardoz
  • Dave Nalle

    I do have a pistol with a 12 inch barrel.

    Dave

  • sr

    Dave, will discuss more with you on SASS later.

    MCH. Im at a loss on this one. Please explain the penis gun extender. Is this one of those kinky sexual space invader things. Let me know dude.

    This is my night to go forth and kill with my licenced squirt gun. YEE HAW.

  • Nick

    Can’t agree with this article more. I’m a British ex-pat now living in the US. I value dearly the ability to defend myself, my family and my property. In the UK, if you find a burglar in your house in the middle of the night, you have to basically bend over and take up the arse. If you attack the burglar or, God forbid, he falls down your stairs or accidentally cuts himself on your property, he can sue you. In the US, find someone in your house after dark that isn’t supposed to be there, you shoot them. The cops will come but they are more likely to pat you on the back than take you into custody.
    The anti-gun lobbyists in the UK that spout off about the US gun problems don’t know what they’re talking about. They look at places like NYC and LA where crime rates are higher. Little do they realize that those are the places in the US where the gun laws are almost as restrictive as those in the UK (eg. only the criminals have the guns). If you go to states like Vermont where everybody can (and often do) carry firearms both openly and concealed, you find that these states have the lowest crime rates. In Texas where I now live, I don’t have to worry too much about being burgled or having my car stereo stolen or being mugged. Why? Because the criminals know that law-abiding citizens have the right to shoot back!
    I know there will always be those anti-gun people who insist things are better if only the criminals have the guns. Well that’s fine and they can be happy if they live in the UK or California where they have to have bars on their windows to keep people out. Me, personally, I will stick to gun-friendly states. After all, I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Written with the wisdom of experience, Nick.

    You know that right now in Texas there’s actually a law which says that if someone invades our property we have a ‘duty to retreat’ before taking any measures to stop the invading criminal. In other words, we can defend our property, but only when forced and given no ohter choice. They’re supposed to be fixing it this legislative session, so what we don’t have to let criminals control the situation when they break in.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    In the US, find someone in your house after dark that isn’t supposed to be there, you shoot them. The cops will come but they are more likely to pat you on the back than take you into custody.

    True, thank the Constitution, but the mopes still can (and sometimes will) try to sue you.