yea go for it , “most” syrians are not against Assad , i know 5 girls from syria and every single one of them supports assad ,
so what you’re telling me is you would kill someone over the contents of your wallet ?
unlike most if not all of you here i have indeed fired a weapon at another human being and i can assure you i hit my target on more than one occasion over my 12 years in the forces . it isnt something to boast about and certainly not something you should talk about so lightly .
i wish none of you ever have to use the guns you hold so highly and i doubt you ever will , your phone is not worth another persons life , no matter how much of a thieving cunt they’re , they have famlies and they have a mum who will cry over them ,
kill or be killed not kill or be mugged , if you have to fire , aim for the legs unless they’re are shooting at you , and when you can avoid it all together . most people robbing you are their to rob not kill or even beat you up ,
you’re the reason civilans shouldnt be allowed guns
No, if he pick pockets me, not. But if he stands against me with a deadly weapon, then it is not about the wallet, it is about deciding whether you trust that the person who stands in front of you with a deadly weapon is to be trusted that he won’t harm you in case you accommodate his wishes, be it a wallet or something more sinister (especially in case of women).
In the latest string of stabbings in Prague, the attacker actually stabbed the victims AFTER they gave him what he wanted - money, phone, notebook, in one case even extremely expensive violin. They gave him what they had then were stabbed. The bastard just got out of prison in Bucharest, got on train to Prague and went for weeks doing this s**t. As written above, most violent criminals are either on drugs or deranged. Many will be only incited if you comply. They already face some 10 years in prison just for involving violence or threat of violence into the robbery (at least in my country), so for them it often makes little difference what happens to you.
Time and time again you put forward your desperate calls that civilians should not have guns. Meanwhile all pro-gun and gun owners here have been respectful of your opinion and of the fact that it is up to the Brits to decide what rules to have in Britain. We respect your choice that in case someone attacks you, maybe for wearing a veteran shirt or for just going behind that 200metres dangerous line (where, as it seems, ordinary people are at mercy of those “making trouble”), that while that attacker will be trying to cut your head off (or just kick you senseless), you will get your phone, unlock it, dial cops, describe your whereabouts and your situation, and they will come and save you, because apparently that is how you think authorities work in UK when someone is facing aggressive violence.
Meanwhile there are people on this forum who believe that their best chance is brandishing a gun, with 99% probability of dissuading the perpetrator from his intent, and who are hoping that in case they meet the 1% psychos, they will have what it takes to survive (because if someone is not dissuaded by looking into the tunnel of death, you can be damn sure it is you he is after, not the wallet he first asked for). I suggest you show some respect too.
1 Like
i have shown respect at all stages . towards you and everyone else
but if someone puts something as stupid and immature as this then i wont even bother showing respect to this comment as this kid clearly has none for human life .
.
if someone is coming at you with a knife and you shot him you would have my complete support . but to shoot an unarmed person is ludicrous
No, it is not. Once you end up on the ground being kicked in the head, the line between nose bleed and serious injury and/or death is a very thin one. Once you are attacked you need to do whatever it takes to prevail - you can’t count on the attacker to have the same restrain as you would have in case you would gain the upper hand. I am not saying shoot right away, but do whatever it takes to stop the attack. For me, that means either defending myself with hands and only if that doesn’t stop the attack, using the gun, or brandishing the gun and having 99% chance that it will suffice - depending on the perceived level of threat.
Do I understand correctly that you have duty to retreat under common law in England? So that you are obliged by the law to try to run away first and only if you can’t you can defend yourself? Maybe that has a lot to do with the most basic philosophical difference in this debate - the system where you have the right to defend yourself vs. system where you are obliged to flee.
2 Likes
In the uk anyone can use “reasonable” force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act “honestly and instinctively” in the heat of the moment. “Fine judgements” over the level of force used are not expected, says the Crown Prosecution Service.
What this means in practice is that someone can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong.
Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. These guidelines also apply if someone, in the spur of the moment, picks up an item to use as a weapon. The law very clearly says that a householder is not expected to weigh up the arguments for and against in the heat of the moment - but they have to show that their actions were reasonable in the moment.
this is the law
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
so its reviewed case to case basically
HOWEVER if this is in YOUR home you do not have to back away , you have the right to defend your home using the same levels of force as your life . so you can kill a crazed knife men in your home .
however if he stabs you wife and runs out the door you can NOT chase him down and kill him as he did not pose a threat any longer
Pre-emptive strikes
There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).
Retreating
Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat when deciding whether the degree of force was reasonable in the circumstances (section 76(6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: (R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110).
Reasonable seems like quite a harsh standard. Our law states that the defence may not be manifestly disproportionate to the manner of the attack, and I still see it as putting quite a high onus on the defender to meet.
Castle doctrine is something that is being considered here now too. Currently, we don’t have different standard for being attacked at a street or facing intruder at home, which is quite a shame.
Where we are ahead, however, is that getting ready for attack by arming self does not change a bit the way the law looks at you. No need to “pick up items in the spur of the moment.” You are a law abiding citizen and you can prepare, carry and use whatever you consider necessary, unless prohibited by law (e.g. firearms, where you need a special license first). You are a law abiding citizen and you are expected not to cross the bar of “manifestly disproportionate” defence, no matter whether you have fist, combat knife or a baseball bat. You are a law abiding citizen and nobody has the right to tell you that you will be safer disarmed having to call the cops, notwithstanding that the Czech crime rates are many, many times lower than UK’s. After all, the bad guy will choose the victim, the place and the time, so the playing field needs to be a bit levelled.
An instructor at a shooting range told me that a lot of women get guns only after they have been raped. For these Czech women it is once and never again. But what is there for an English woman? Especially the one that lives behind that 200m safe line of yours? Are you sure they share the view of yours that they are better off unarmed?
1 Like
pretty much everyone in the UK shares my view , rape victims or not .
as a country people dont feel the need to prepare for such attacks because of how rare they are most robbings in the uk are committed by eastern europeans such as romaianains snatching hand bags etc very very few these days are done at knife point for the simple fact that the police come down so hard on knife crime and you cant run away as everywhere you go you’re being watched . for example the riots in 2011 pretty much 80% of the people who went out and stole were arrested in the weeks after . as the whole thing is on camera everywhere .
the uk has problems with petty crime , not so much knfe or gun point robbings or killings , when these do happen they normally involve two groups of thugs killing eachother .
i am absolutely for the right of self defence and killing if its the only option , but i dont want a society where people have to carry guns to feel safe .
in the UK if you own a gun you are perfectly allowed to use it to defend yourself
i think our law covers it perfectly though , if in your mind you’re clear that you are not going overboard then you will be supported by the law . it doesnt set any limit or restrictions on what you’re free to do in order to ensure your safety only that you prove you acted reasonably . if the robber is on the ground you shouldn’t be allowed to keep kicking or stabbing him , there no need just restrain and wait for police,
You most not know much about fighting fires then. Sometimes burning up all the fuel is the only way not to get burned.
so your saying its best to kill the mayority of the people? ther is nothing left after you have burnd it all up
Your first response opened up with telling me to shut up, then you proclaimed im the reason civilians shouldn’t be allowed guns. How you perceive yourself as being respectful is dumbfounding.
Wisdom comes from experience not age, I may be young with 24 years under my belt but I have learned and experienced more then some twice my age.
you assume I have no respect for “human” life based on a quote you clearly do not understand.
Nope, not at all. I never mentioned personal possessions, only the defense of your own life.
I completely agree with this statement. my initial entry into this conversation was on the subject of being a solitary opposition to a group of rioters.
In a situation such as the one stated above you can not correctly judge the intentions of group, it may begin as a mugging or quick beat down but it has great potential to get out of hand.
I personally disagree with taking another life under any circumstances, but should anyone be put into a situation where it’s your life or there’s Kill Them they have already chosen themselves over you.
1 Like
America is a country of countries. So many different ways people think here, (I’m from Seattle, but I’ve been all over,) that I can understand now how our Congress doesn’t get any sh*t done. And these people’s opinions are all different on how one should respond from an attack or a threat. It literally blows my mind that this country even functions with the thousands of opinions here. It almost didn’t, the Founding Fathers argued constantly and some hated each other. "Merica man.
1 Like
Just read a report about the kill rate in Brasil. The police killed 11.000 people in the last 5 years, more than the US police in the last 30!
Statistically, every 10 minutes someone is murdered. I doubt weapons would help in this country. You’d need chemical agents to deal with that.
On a serious note, violence can never be the answer to violence. The status quo is said to help preventing crime if the burglar/mugger knows you are armed yourself. This was the same idea with nuclear deterrence or “mutual assured destruction”.
In a perfect world weapons would be used for hunting, recreation and competition. In our world, even a butter knife is used to rob a bank to pay the drugs some poor junkie is addicted to. Therefore people will be armed, legally or not.
The appropriate action is difficult in a dangerous situation. A guy has been sentenced in Germany for man slaughter because he shot a burgler on the run in the back.
It would have been appropriate, if he shot him face to face. In this case, he could have yelled at the robber he lost the purse with 2 grand on his way out and pull the trigger when he turns around to pick it up. No one could say there was no purse afterwards.
in some idealized utopia where everyone is sane, rationale, pacifist.
in reality, if you’re not willing to do violence when lives are at stake, you’re a liability to everyone around you.
it means when a dangerous person makes his intent known, and you’re in a position to end the situation, you’re going to sit there and chant your mantra while your family gets slaughtered.
practical thinking > platitudes
You are exaggerating. I never said you should not act against a threat. You always have options and the ultima ratio would be lethal force. Violence is not black/white. It always has to be appropriate to the threat.
The best solution for crime and violence is total extinction. Problem solved (=humans dead). As long as we call ourselves the pinnacle of evolution, people will die. And we are actually pretty good at killing.
That being said, I like shooting and owning guns. If I have to I will use them to defend myself and those around me. Since we are not allowed to carry guns, I carry a knife. I know how to use it and I know how to use guns. Let’s hope no one ever challenges me to prove it.
Be vigilant, be modest. No one needs to know what you are capable of.
I think you are trying to spin what you wrote. The only way you can stop action is counteraction that exceeds the level of the attacker’s action. Violent action may be stopped only by violent counteraction, like it or not.
1 Like