Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[Renton]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...ief-senseless/

Discuss.

[JKDS]

Car insurance covers theft. If its worth killing over, its worth insuring. If its insured, killing a thief is senseless.

In addition, good cars have antitheft devices. Bad cars arent worth killing over.

[JKDS]

On the other hand, FUCK THIEVES. Its my stuff, fuck you. DIAGF

[kingnat]

My thoughts: Man I'm so torn on this issue. I think that the dude is a retard and that when you steal you open yourself up to risk of being killed, especially in America. On the other hand I think shooting someone in the head when they represent no existential threat to you is morally wrong. This doesn't even fall in the realm of castle doctrine. When someone breaks into your house you don't know if they are a survival threat to you so its ok to kill them because of the uncertainty, but if they are driving off in your car there's no question of whether they are a threat. They aren't. I guess I'm not so torn after all, I def think the shooter should face charges.

[kingnat]

My thoughts: Man I'm so torn on this issue. I think that the dude is a retard and that when you steal you open yourself up to risk of being killed, especially in America. On the other hand I think shooting someone in the head when they represent no existential threat to you is morally wrong. This doesn't even fall in the realm of castle doctrine. When someone breaks into your house you don't know if they are a survival threat to you so its ok to kill them because of the uncertainty, but if they are driving off in your car there's no question of whether they are a threat. They aren't. I guess I'm not so torn after all, I def think the shooter should face charges.

Renton did you not notice, that I copied your comments from fb and posted them here?

[Renton]

Renton did you not notice, that I copied your comments from fb and posted them here?

Yeah I noticed!

[WillburForce]

Killer should get the death penalty. Whoooooooo Americaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

[PokerKing]

Killing someone for stealing your car is insane. Now the shooter risk to get very long time behind bars becuase someone stole his CAR? What a moron

[Renton]

Killing someone for stealing your car is insane. Now the shooter risk to get very long time behind bars becuase someone stole his CAR? What a moron

I don't think you understand what country this is. Aproximately 0.1% chance the killer goes to jail.

[WillburForce]

I don't think you understand what country this is. Aproximately 0.1% chance the killer goes to jail.

Really??? This is clearly murder.

[PokerKing]

I don't think you understand what country this is. Aproximately 0.1% chance the killer goes to jail.

I know it's America, but I can't believe you go free for that, but hey, heard worse stories from over there

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree with kingnat. There is no reason to kill someone who is running away from you with stolen property. Certainly not residential property. If they are not posing a direct threat to life, the use of lethal force is unwarranted.

I mean a kidnapping, maybe... MAYBE, cause risk to the kidnapped. Military scenarios, probably... usual caveats for any ethical position.

[oskar]

That reminds me of those police traps they set up where they leave a car open with the keys in the ignition and as soon as someone picks it up, they get busted.

As if organized car thieves run around looking for unlocked cars. That's thievery as much as much as walking through an open door is breakin an entry. There might techically be an "employers only" sign, but that doen't mean you deserve to be shot on sight.

And that's why people call for gun control. Our frontal lobes are too small, and the adrenal glands are too big. People are not going to make sensible decisions regarding life and death in the heat of the moment.

[WillburForce]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/ap...artin.ukcrime3

This guy shot and killed burglar in his remote farmhouse in the middle of the night.

He got life in prison.

Go team Europe.

(ps if you really look the case, the guy was a nutter and was rightly IMHO given jail)

[Renton]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/ap...artin.ukcrime3

This guy shot and killed burglar in his remote farmhouse in the middle of the night.

He got life in prison.

Go team Europe.

(ps if you really look the case, the guy was a nutter and was rightly IMHO given jail)

As usually Europe goes too far. Killing someone who's busted into your place who might have all sorts of machinations for hurting you or your family is an altogether separate thing from what this case was: deadly retribution for theft.

[Savy]

As usually Europe goes too far. Killing someone who's busted into your place who might have all sorts of machinations for hurting you or your family is an altogether separate thing from what this case was: deadly retribution for theft.

The majority of people who burgle houses don't want to cause the occupants any harm whatsoever. They are there for the money, the law has a large distinction between burglary and home invasions.

If I remember correctly the farmer shot the lad in the back too, making it impossible for him to be causing any immediate threat to the farmer. Also killing someone clearly isn't reasonable force the majority of the time.

[Renton]

The majority of people who burgle houses don't want to cause the occupants any harm whatsoever. They are there for the money, the law has a large distinction between burglary and home invasions.

"Majority" is not strong enough for me to decide not to mitigate my risk of death by shooting a person. If only 10% of home burglaries resulted in injury of the occupant then he'd still be justified because no just citizen deserves to roll a ten sided die for his life.

Also, a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. In a society where we've decided its ok and lawful to own guns (and we have, sorry Europe), we have to be ok with the use of guns and make distinctions for the appropriate measures of self defense. Someone breaking into your home while you are in it poses a threat to your life, statistically speaking, even if the majority poses no threat. While this uncertainty exists, you are justified in defending yourself. As soon as the threat is gone i.e. he took your shit and is on his way, you have no right to mete out retribution as that is the job of the authorities.

[Lukie]

The majority of people who burgle houses don't want to cause the occupants any harm whatsoever. They are there for the money, the law has a large distinction between burglary and home invasions.

lol you must be joking. Why should the risk of that situation be on the person who is innocently in his/her home and not on the person breaking in? (Assuming you are male), pretend you are a female and 2 large men kick down the door to your flat... what's your play here?


Onto Renton's OP...

First there are widely varying laws regarding self defense and even property defense in different jurisdictions. Further there are widely varying interpretations of those laws, and people have different personal opinions on the ethics of those situations.

Personally I think that shooting someone who is driving away in a stolen car is ethically wrong, unless there is some spectacular mitigating circumstances. I'm not sure whether that was a legal shot in that jurisdiction (it wouldn't be in most) but regardless, that is certainly not in the spirit of any self-defense or castle doctrine law. Again, that's my opinion.

This is different than situations like armed robbery where there is both prospects of stolen property and threat of bodily harm. It's the latter point that makes it a self-defense situation. Just speaking in generalities here now

[Savy]

lol you must be joking. Why should the risk of that situation be on the person who is innocently in his/her home and not on the person breaking in? (Assuming you are male), pretend you are a female and 2 large men kick down the door to your flat... what's your play here?

She should be able to defend herself, they pose a threat to her. There is a difference.

The majority of confrontations just result in people needlessly getting hurt (mainly on the homeowners part) especially when guns are involved.

[Jack Sawyer]

As usually Europe goes too far. Killing someone who's busted into your place who might have all sorts of machinations for hurting you or your family is an altogether separate thing from what this case was: deadly retribution for theft.

Like Notorious Pistorious

[eugmac]

Defending the killer is defending "an eye for an eye" mentality, except in this case it's more like "your whole head for my eye". Not the kind of model society should follow. It's essentially condoning vigilantes to carry out the death penalty for theft.

[!Luck]

The more people who do this the better. I want the thieves to have more risk, I'm just not willing to kill anyone myself. But other people, that's fine.

[surviva316]

The more people who do this the better. I want the thieves to have more risk, I'm just not willing to kill anyone myself. But other people, that's fine.

Do you think that when a judge convicts anyone of any crime, he should flip a 100-sided coin, and if it comes up 100, shoot the defendant?

[d0zer]

Do you think that when a judge convicts anyone of any crime, he should flip a 100-sided coin, and if it comes up 100, shoot the defendant?

Another great reality show idea!

[spoonitnow]

Morality is subjective. I think it's probably a toss-up on whether he should have pulled the trigger or not. I don't really care either way.

However, a massive piece of shit was removed from the gene pool. Tax dollars won't go to any of his leech-ass offspring that he would have had in the future, or their leech-ass offspring, or their leech-ass offspring. Who knows how many crimes were prevented by this piece of shit's death?

[jyms]

I wonder what kind of society we would have if every criminal that was caught was killed even for something as small as theft no matter the value. I'm not sure I hate criminals having more fear of getting caught than victims of losing their possessions.

[spoonitnow]

I wonder what kind of society we would have if every criminal that was caught was killed even for something as small as theft no matter the value. I'm not sure I hate criminals having more fear of getting caught than victims of losing their possessions.

There's a Star Trek TNG episode that deals with this. It's in the first season before that dyke gets knocked off because she was bored with her character.

[Renton]

I wonder what kind of society we would have if every criminal that was caught was killed even for something as small as theft no matter the value. I'm not sure I hate criminals having more fear of getting caught than victims of losing their possessions.

I have no doubt that the threat of getting killed deters some amount of petty crime in the U.S. The question is not really of whether the thief was a piece of shit or took a risk or whatever. The question is whether it was ok for that man to shoot him.

Someone made a good point about gun control. I had my iphone stolen a few weeks ago. Literally snatched out of my hand by a guy on a motorbike while I was on an open-air taxi. It pissed me off so much that I'm certain I'd have shot at him if I was carrying a gun. Humans are quite flawed in their ability to deal with stress at a moment's notice.

Unfortunately, gun control is a terrible idea for the U.S., and only really works wonders in countries that aren't deeply rooted in gun culture to begin with and, perhaps more importantly, don't already have a shitton of guns. I think the best we can do at this point is shun people who worship and collect these death machines and teach our children not to fucking kill people for petty reasons.

Oh and also, we could make the laws more clear on what constitutes self defense and lawful use of deadly force. As it currently is in many states, including WA, you can pretty much shoot anyone you want and make at least a decent case for justifiable homicide. Especially if the victim is big, black, or has any sort of criminal record. The status quo cultivates a sort of laissez faire attitude with regard to the use of guns. Maybe this dude wouldn't have shot the guy if he wasn't 98% sure he'd get off?

[Lukie]

I have no doubt that the threat of getting killed deters some amount of petty crime in the U.S. The question is not really of whether the thief was a piece of shit or took a risk or whatever. The question is whether it was ok for that man to shoot him.

Someone made a good point about gun control. I had my iphone stolen a few weeks ago. Literally snatched out of my hand by a guy on a motorbike while I was on an open-air taxi. It pissed me off so much that I'm certain I'd have shot at him if I was carrying a gun. Humans are quite flawed in their ability to deal with stress at a moment's notice.

Unfortunately, gun control is a terrible idea for the U.S., and only really works wonders in countries that aren't deeply rooted in gun culture to begin with and, perhaps more importantly, don't already have a shitton of guns. I think the best we can do at this point is shun people who worship and collect these death machines and teach our children not to fucking kill people for petty reasons.

Oh and also, we could make the laws more clear on what constitutes self defense and lawful use of deadly force. As it currently is in many states, including WA, you can pretty much shoot anyone you want and make at least a decent case for justifiable homicide. Especially if the victim is big, black, or has any sort of criminal record. The status quo cultivates a sort of laissez faire attitude with regard to the use of guns. Maybe this dude wouldn't have shot the guy if he wasn't 98% sure he'd get off?

There are other states like Florida that have very, very laxly written laws that fit your description of being able to make a decent case of justifiable homicide even in cases where it clearly shouldn't be.

I'm sure I come off as very pro-gun, I consider myself to be pro-gun, but there is certainly a limit. The points you brought up about specific 'stand your ground' laws and the laissez faire attitude regarding the use of guns (i.e. killing or severely wounding people) is very concerning. It is a horrible trend.

I don't really agree with your comment about people who collect guns. It is a legitimate hobby. There are surely countless hobbies out there that neither of us really understand. I know what you're getting at though.. you don't want to cultivate that mall ninja type who carries 2 glocks and enough ammunition for a short war everywhere he goes and who is itching for someone to cross the line of what would allow lethal force. That type frightens me too.

[spoonitnow]

I'm sure I come off as very pro-gun, I consider myself to be pro-gun, but there is certainly a limit. The points you brought up about specific 'stand your ground' laws and the laissez faire attitude regarding the use of guns (i.e. killing or severely wounding people) is very concerning. It is a horrible trend.

I don't really agree with your comment about people who collect guns. It is a legitimate hobby. There are surely countless hobbies out there that neither of us really understand. I know what you're getting at though.. you don't want to cultivate that mall ninja type who carries 2 glocks and enough ammunition for a short war everywhere he goes and who is itching for someone to cross the line of what would allow lethal force. That type frightens me too.

Agree with most or all of this.

[bikes]

wat

[d0zer]

I've always felt that the judicial system was just a little too civilized, a little too 'progressive'. What could possibly go wrong with letting armed vigilante justice run rampant?

[KoRnholio]

As the story was described, it most certainly was not self-defense. It was most definitely senseless. The shooter should be held accountable for manslaughter.

[daviddem]

Do you guys also shoot the kids who steal candies in the shops? Good for them imo, why give them a chance to grow up and steal your car later?

[kiwiMark]

and bonus justifiable points if you hit him in the front!

[daviddem]

You probably can't change it at a moment's notice. What you need to change is the culture by properly educating the kids, then in a couple of generations you might end up not living in a country of gun nuts.

Start by stopping to spread that myth that owing or carrying guns is any good for self defense and explaining that it only makes things worse the majority of the time.

If you're worried about home invasion, you'll be much better off with a strong room and an alarm system. Starting a shooting only increases the chance of you or your family getting shot, or you killing someone you shouldn't have killed.

My TV or my car are not worth risking my family's or my own life for. Not even the one of the thief.

[kiwiMark]

too many black presidents

[daviddem]

too many black presidents

We don't have any of that in Europe, but your black president beats hands down the lackwit moronic ignoranus warmonger who was there before him.

[daviddem]

As for home thieves, yes, the vast majority want to avoid confrontation. That's probably why an immense majority of burglaries are committed in empty houses.

If you start assuming that any petty thief should get shot on sight because he potentially could be a murderer or a rapist, where do you stop? Hell everybody I come across with in the street could potentially be a murderer or a rapist.

[spoonitnow]

If you start assuming that any petty thief should get shot on sight because he potentially could be a murderer or a rapist, where do you stop? Hell everybody I come across with in the street could potentially be a murderer or a rapist.

You're smarter than to use this type of weak argument.

[daviddem]

You're smarter than to use this type of weak argument.

You want weak arguments? -> NRA website

The point is where does it stop? At what point should you be allowed to shoot someone?

The other point is that people who think that pulling a gun is the best thing to do when they feel threatened are most likely mistaken. In the vast majority of cases, there is far more chance of harm getting to them if they do than if they don't.

[kiwiMark]

The other point is that people who think that pulling a gun is the best thing to do when they feel threatened are most likely mistaken.

This is a key thing for me. I don't really get how someone thinks they'd have an edge in this situation where there's one or more armed burglars in their house and they have a gun. 100% of the time the criminals are going to be more mentally prepared for the immediate situation than you are (in that they know they're breaking into your home, you don't) and in general terms it seems a pretty safe assumption that they're more comfortable with weapons and weapons in high pressure situations than you are.

[daviddem]

This is a key thing for me. I don't really get how someone thinks they'd have an edge in this situation where there's one or more armed burglars in their house and they have a gun. 100% of the time the criminals are going to be more mentally prepared for the immediate situation than you are (in that they know they're breaking into your home, you don't) and in general terms it seems a pretty safe assumption that they're more comfortable with weapons and weapons in high pressure situations than you are.

Exactly. And that's not even talking of accidents and the "law abiding citizens" turning into road rage assassins or shooting their neighbour, their wife, their classmates, random little children, themselves or a whole movie theater on the spur of the moment.

[oskar]

It seems like the american way of dealing with problems is to repeatedly bash it with a stick while loudly explaining: "BAD THING! DO NOT WANT!".
Instead of taking a step back and figuring out how to solve things long term.

If you want to know what a society is like when it's governed by vigilantism and crimes are punished with death, take a look at the Liberia-Ghana region. Spoiler alert: Hell on earth.

It's not like we don't have extensive studies of that in all shades, and the result is uniformly the same. You can either care and look into that, or you can keep beating it with a stick and wait for it to go away.

And that morality is subjective and this is a "coinflip" is probably the dumbest shit you ever said, spoon. Fuck me!
I might spell this out for you, if you insist, but I just want to have it said that you are not as smart as you think you are when it comes to anything outside math, apparently.
Your main method of argument is to immediately go into ad hominem when someone attacks your position, which is just very frustrating and boring to deal with.

[spoonitnow]

And that morality is subjective and this is a "coinflip" is probably the dumbest shit you ever said, spoon. Fuck me!
I might spell this out for you, if you insist, but I just want to have it said that you are not as smart as you think you are when it comes to anything outside math, apparently.

Excellent argument. Morality is certainly not subjective. How silly of me.

[kiwiMark]

also the irony is strong in oskar

[oskar]

Do I fucking have to define morality? Read a book, will you. Goddamn. >_<

[kiwiMark]

Nope, above comment was limited to you ad homineming spoon for ad homineming

[oskar]

Nope, above comment was limited to you ad homineming spoon for ad homineming

I know exactly what I did, it's just that what he said is so far off the scale for idiocy that I don't even feel like going there. It's like having to explain that the sky as blue and that night is dark.

[oskar]

Awesome! Now go put Earnest Brecker and Sigmund Freud on your reading list, and we can move on.

** Also I probably wrongfully assume that everyone is familiar with Kant, which might not be the case outside of german speaking countries. But the point is there is and has been for some time a definition of what is moral that is broken down logically. Any truly subjective morality should be irradicated because it's not needed and is ultimately going to cause more harm than good.

[JKDS]

Its just risk calculation :/

Is it likely you will be killed anyway? Raped? Kidnapped and sold into a sex trafficking ring and then raped and killed? Is the invader some guy you cut off on the way home and is clearly intending to cause you an unknown amount of physical harm? Is he masked? Stressed?

No, pulling a gun will not save you some/most of the time. But othertimes it will. Evaluating when to pull it/how to act/etc during the invasion would also be something you'd consider.

Obviously, we arent concerned with prosecuting homeowners that shoot invaders...so im not really sure where we're going with this. Courts decide selfdefense type arguments on a case-by-case basis and take all the factors of the shooting into consideration when deciding if it was reasonable or not...we dont have bright line rules defining it because of the difficulty yall are having right now making one.

[kiwiMark]

I'm pretty sure there are statistics to back up that gun "defenders" or however you call the occupant of the home get shot/injured more in home invasions. I'll google for 'em now, but to be honest these days I often feel like there are statistics to back up both opposing sides of any argument, on god's green internet. Statistics aside, the line of reasoning at least is like this:

Home invader has a weapon simply because he wants to scare you into compliance but has no intention to use it. Suddenly he's faced with the occupant of the house also having a weapon, and so home invader and home occupant alike find themselves in a "him or me" situation and use their weapons.

So it's not that you'd be better off in a life-or-death situation without a gun, but that having a gun in the first place could be what transforms things into a life-or-death situation.


edit: first google hit is this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html about carrying a gun rather than having one in your home.

second google hit is an article about why the first is stupid (and probably so on and so forth throughout all the results)

[Lukie]

I'm pretty sure there are statistics to back up that gun "defenders" or however you call the occupant of the home get shot/injured more in home invasions. I'll google for 'em now, but to be honest these days I often feel like there are statistics to back up both opposing sides of any argument, on god's green internet. Statistics aside, the line of reasoning at least is like this:

Home invader has a weapon simply because he wants to scare you into compliance but has no intention to use it. Suddenly he's faced with the occupant of the house also having a weapon, and so home invader and home occupant alike find themselves in a "him or me" situation and use their weapons.

So it's not that you'd be better off in a life-or-death situation without a gun, but that having a gun in the first place could be what transforms things into a life-or-death situation.


edit: first google hit is this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html about carrying a gun rather than having one in your home.

second google hit is an article about why the first is stupid (and probably so on and so forth throughout all the results)

Yeah statistics can often be used to argue just about any point being made. I have seen them used both ways and am often left extremely disappointed with the point being made.

2 examples, one from each side of the coin:

- stats comparing states that invoke CCW and castle doctrine laws, which typically show a decrease in violent crime

- stats comparing Europeans with us crazy, violent, gun-loving Americans

Neither are really conclusive because there are so many confounding variables, and people with extremely strong viewpoints on either side who actively seek data to back up their respective opinions, rather than being as unbiased as possible. That's just how it goes in political discussion.

edit: I use the term 'states' like an American, that is talking about the 50 states that make up the United States. I should probably use a more unambiguous term in these discussions.

[kiwiMark]

Yeah, exactly. Being neither an american home owner nor someone with aspirations to home invade I don't really have a stake in this discussion either way, but as I grow a bit older I find it interesting to revisit issues like this where I grew up unquestioningly on one side of it ( in this case on the no guns team by default due to country of birth ) without having actually thought through the other side of it beyond "bah they're prolly fools who like bangsticks and don't know my flashy percentages"

[Lukie]

Yeah, exactly. Being neither an american home owner nor someone with aspirations to home invade I don't really have a stake in this discussion either way, but as I grow a bit older I find it interesting to revisit issues like this where I grew up unquestioningly on one side of it ( in this case on the no guns team by default due to country of birth ) without having actually thought through the other side of it beyond "bah they're prolly fools who like bangsticks and don't know my flashy percentages"

Yeah.. it is hard to change viewpoints on something you have felt strongly about for a long time. That goes both ways of course.

One thing to keep an eye on is that various U.S. states are going in very different directions regarding gun laws. You have states like California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York that are enacting some pretty tough gun laws by U.S. standards. There are other states like Texas, Florida, and many states in the deep south (using that term culturally as well as geographically) that are much more lax wrt guns.

I am curious to see how certain markers like gun deaths, homocide, violent crime etc. respond to those laws. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on it. It's just one of those things I try to keep up with, you know?

[kiwiMark]

meh at that point you can start to extrapolate this whole thing to "why capitalism is bad" or "why good parenting is important" to avoid discussing guns ever again

[Savy]

meh at that point you can start to extrapolate this whole thing to "why capitalism is bad" or "why good parenting is important" to avoid discussing guns ever again

Capitalism literally rapes the people. I like it!!!

But yeah, my point was more just guns aren't really the real problem or solution. Which I don't think many people seem to pick up on.

[kiwiMark]

If we just kill all the women then in a hundred or so years things should settle down nicely.

[BankItDrew]

How do you suppose a judge would view this incident if instead of pulling out his gun, the shooter pulled out his other keys for his other car, and ran the thief off the road to his death?

I get the impression that Americuh would frown upon the second scenerio more so than the original.

[Lukie]

How do you suppose a judge would view this incident if instead of pulling out his gun, the shooter pulled out his other keys for his other car, and ran the thief off the road to his death?

I get the impression that Americuh would frown upon the second scenerio more so than the original.

Well, duh. How could one even remotely consider the second scenario to be personal defense or even defense of property? It obviously entails significant risk of personal injury and ensured destruction of property.

Most 'Muricans, myself included, wouldn't support the shooter's actions in the original scenario.

[Renton]

Most 'Muricans, myself included, wouldn't support the shooter's actions in the original scenario.

You might want to check the comments section on the news article.

[Lukie]

You might want to check the comments section on the news article.

article/video comments are the dredges of the internet lol. And I hate that freaking format where the most recent comments are at the top and there are various sub-topics underneath. And I do wonder how much of this is a vocal minority vs silent majority thing. Ok, enough excuses

I just skimmed through it real quick, and a lot of comments were basically the robber is scum of the earth and the world is a better place that he is dead. Here is an example of a quote like that:

sure, and its "senseless" to have someone like this roaming the streets. Again, with multiple convictions for car theft, assault with a deadly weapon, drug charges, how was this guy on the street? some as late as 2012?
Not saying a car is worth a life, but yes, people will shoot when you try and steal their stuff.
Look at this way, if the car is stolen, you could be threatening the owner's livelihood. How would they get to work? Can they afford to buy another one? are they insured? can they afford to rent a car for 30 days while insurance companies dick around and try not to pay? Do they need it to run sick family members for medical treatment?
the loss of a car could be a very real threat to someone's ability to continue to work, earn, live, eat, etc.

Might as well add that even if insured, typically you would have to pay a deductible. As I understand it, I personally would have to pay a $1,000 deductible and if not for having comprehensive, would be on the hook for the entire amount.

Like I said before, I don't think protecting property justifies taking a life. It isn't the nonchalant 'no big deal' that many here are making it out to be either. Maybe I underestimated the amount of people who thought this was a clean shot.

[mrhappy333]

Don't steal = Don't get shot

[Lukie]

Don't steal = Don't get shot

Yeah, burglary and grand theft auto are very high risk ventures.

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

[WillburForce]

Yeah, burglary and grand theft auto are very high risk ventures.

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

I would imagine our violent/murder home intrusions are one hell of a lot lower than yours.

[Lukie]

I would imagine our violent/murder home intrusions are one hell of a lot lower than yours.

Standard protocol here is that people who don't like guns compare violent crime stats between European countries (strict gun control) and USA (lax gun control).

People who shoot guns compare stats between Central American countries (strict gun control) vs USA (lax gun control)

Again there are tons of confounding variables which make the stats tell only part of the story at best. I know for a fact that homocide and firearm death is higher in the US than the UK; you don't need to tell me that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

[WillburForce]

Standard protocol here is that people who don't like guns compare violent crime stats between European countries (strict gun control) and USA (lax gun control).

People who shoot guns compare stats between Central American countries (strict gun control) vs USA (lax gun control)

Again there are tons of confounding variables which make the stats tell only part of the story at best. I know for a fact that homocide and firearm death is higher in the US than the UK; you don't need to tell me that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

I think its hard to compare Central America with Europe. They may ban guns, but I don't think they have the political or police clout to enforce it, just look at Mexico (I think guns are banned???).

Over here if you're caught with a gun you go to prison for a long time.

My uncle is a farmer and his neighbor threatened to shoot him over some farming dispute, very heat of the moment (when I say threatened I mean he said along the lines of "You should get a gun shoved up your arse"). Neighbor got a suspended prison sentence and is banned from ever holding a gun licence.

Out of interest Lukie where do you stand on guns? Do you own one? You seem like a v intelligent and measured guy, so I'd be interested.

On a side note, I think we in Britain think of US as having the same sort of views as us because you speak the Engrish, but I think culturally and politically we're miles apart!

[d0zer]

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

I didn't gather as much from this thread's attitude as you did...


The fundamental motivations behind home invasion are always more powerful than the deterrents are at dissuading the action. Going into someone's home is always full of risk, regardless of guns. The presence of guns would definitely be a stronger dissuading factor, but the decision is still going to be primarily motivated by whatever shit the f'n assholes want.

The real way to reduce home invasions is to have everyone in a comfortable enough situation that the risk/reward to rob people just isn't there. Stats are incomplete, heavily biased on both sides of the argument and largely inconclusive around gun ownership & safety, but socio-economic stats are pretty clear.

That being said, if I lived in a rough neighborhood in 'merica I just might be convinced to sleep next to a gun...

[Savy]

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

There are plenty of deterrents. Just because the threat of getting shot isn't there doesn't mean everyone thinks it's a fantastic idea to go and steal shit.

In fact, it'd be interesting to consider similar places in Europe & America where the only real difference is the fact that guns are allowed and see how their crime statistics compare.

It's also interesting to see how where people grew up influences their decisions, however I'd like to point out that the feeling of fear which a lot of Americans seem to have is completely unrealistic. In lots of places it's completely common place to leave your front doors unlocked whilst you are in. And I don't mean in places that you'd consider nice affluent areas, there are some pretty rough places where this happens. Yet crime statistics comparing similar areas in terms of burglaries are no different.

Suppose you can blame your media for pumping fear into you 24/7.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What I know (or at least I believe is true):
A huge number of families in rural America hunt for some (if not most) of the meat their family eats in a year. Trying to change a gun culture that is still a part of a family's sustenance is never going to happen. You can never convince that family that their guns are bad. Their guns feed them.

For the weekend target shooters, they do not ever keep their guns unlocked or near ammo except when they're at a regulated shooting range. They're not going to understand how their behavior is in any way a threat to anyone, and will not be swayed into teaching their kids that "guns are bad". They have probably already bought their kids their own guns to go shoot at the range with them.

For the guy who has gone through every required safety course and carries a gun everywhere he goes, changing his mind is laughable. He almost definitely owns a number of illegal weapons, is likely ex-military, and holds his guns with a reverence that will not falter. His guns are a huge part of his identity.

My opinion:
These 3 groups alone are large enough to keep the gun culture in America at a status quo. I can't conceive of a practical way to "changing the gun culture in America by teaching the kids". It could take an outbreak of vigilantism (or outright rebellion) on a national scale and the fallout and resolution of that conflict to change the way American's perceive domestic gun ownership.

[spoonitnow]

For the guy who has gone through every required safety course and carries a gun everywhere he goes, changing his mind is laughable. He almost definitely owns a number of illegal weapons, is likely ex-military, and holds his guns with a reverence that will not falter. His guns are a huge part of his identity.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?

God I'm getting such a fucking kick out of what these Eurotards think about people who carry guns.

Goddamn man. You people wonder why nobody takes you seriously when it comes to this shit.

[WillburForce]

Haven't read all the posts above.

But in with regards the burglar who got killed. The homeowner who shot him had been lying in ambush - he had an unlicensed gun and was a nutter. That's murder.

Comes back to gun control....in London when you're burgled its highly unlikely they will have gun. It's even more unlikely that the home owner will (though most farms do I guess - but they're tightly regulated and should be locked away). There is no point in a burglar having a gun as it will just increase their jail time if caught and they're unlikely to ever have to use any force anyway.

I got burgled when I was in a few back, heard the door get jimmied - came downstairs and they legged it. Doesn't bear thinking about if we both had guns.

But fecking hell - if anyone thinks its anyway justified to kill someone over car theft you're an arsehole.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are you calling me a Eurotard?
I've never left the USA except on a canoeing trip while in Boy Scouts where we were technically in Canada for about 1/3 of the 50 mile trek. It wasn't like we met any Canadians or even saw their buildings. Not even a moose.

Seriously, I'm not a part of the gun culture. I'm just trying to explain why I think the "teach dem kids" argument is not going to work. Domestic gun ownership in America is a deeply ingrained tradition, which will be stupendously hard to change.

Personally, I don't want a gun myself, so it would be more convenient for me if no one else had them. I can't see a way to change this, though, and certainly not one that would take advantage of my passion for physics and poker, so I kind of don't care to say if it's good or bad. I'll just sit the ethical fence on whether or not there should be guns and if so who should decide who gets to have them.

assault weapons are the most dangerous of all the weapons, because unlike regular weapons: assault weapons can be used to assault people.

[BennyLaRue]

Poor + illegal economic opportunities = guns

Europe ≠ Central America

[WillburForce]

Poor + illegal economic opportunities = guns

Europe ≠ Central America

Benny makes a serious post. The world has officially ended.