Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Hey, a like-minded person! I was drawn to Utilitarianism as soon as I had heard of it, but I was turned off slighty by the fact that, in John Stuart Mill's case at least, Utilitarianism requires a person to do what results in the greatest good to be moral. I disagree, I think to be moral, you just have increase the net "goodness." To be immoral you have to decrease the net "goodness." And if you want to be amoral, you have no effect whatever on the net "goodness." But that's my view.

I'm just unable to accept that. There is no way that I could not do something about it.I think just laying there and letting someone walk all over your right to your property perpetuates the problem. That the crook realizes that people probably aren't going to defend themselves anyway is a motivation to commit the crime.And like Legend says, you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why assume that they are not going to try to hurt you?I'm baffled by this line of thinking and just can't get myself to respect that attitude.

I guess I'm not sure what the dilemma is. Is it that you recognize that our desire for revenge/justice can be a source of both good and evil? There are lots of things in life that are like that. Thanks!

This assumes that resistance actually works as a deterrent. This is not the case. In most cases intruders don't realize there is anyone home - thieves want to avoid a confrontation as much as you do. Only those who specifically intend to commit acts of violence (rapists, etc) target homes they know are occupied, and those are far less common that everyday burglars. I assume nothing. Whether they're out to hurt me or not, the best outcome is for them not to ever find me before the police arrive.Allow me to clarify: if someone enters my home, the best course of action is indeed to hide and quietly call the police, trying to avoid confrontation. If confrontation becomes inevitable (the intruder enters the room I'm hiding in, or otherwise finds me) then certainly "doing something about it" becomes the only remaining course of action. I would in fact support a pre-emptive shooting if an armed intruder entered the room I'm hiding in - shoot him before he knows where I am. But if a confrontation can be avoided entirely...as I said, my TV isn't worth a human life, whether that's mine or his or anyone elses.Rushing out to meet an intruder who may well be armed simply invites disaster before taking such a risk is rationally justified. I can understand that. The instinctual "defend my stuff and my family" reaction is very strong.I've actually had an intruder in my home, by the way, and I didn't react the way I would like to. It wasn't a break-in - some guy apparently got confused about which apartment was which and walked into mine by mistake (I had forgotten to lock the door). I wasn't asleep, and I came charging out...like an idiot who wanted to get shot. If the intruder had been violent, I would likely be dead. As it was, he quickly realized his mistake, raised his hands and apologized. He left without further incident, and I was lucky.I'm also rather glad I wasn't armed, as I may have ended a man's life for simply walking in the wrong door.Here's an idea: call your local police department and ask them what they think is the best course of action in case of a home intrusion. 100 internets says they'll tell you to call the police and hide.

Out of the instances where an intruder enters an occupied home, how many of them were for burglary?Out of burglaries, how many were in occupied homes? How many of those were thought to be unoccupied? I wish a mutha-fucka would find me! j/kYou're attitude allows crime. I think its pathetic, no offense. Grow a pair and protect yourself. Don't let crooks walk all over you. I think the best course of action is to yell: "Hey, there's somebody here and I have a gun. Get the fuck out of my house!"Calling the police isn't going to help you. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. They come to take notes on what you lost or to draw lines around your body. They don't stop the crime. Again you're assuming, for no reason, that all he wants is your TV.If you hesitate and allow them to get the jump on you, then you could be done for. You might not even get a chance to call the police. Its better to be pro-active and to take the steps to protect yourself. Yeah, that's a stupid response that I'm not advocating. Quite possibly the strongest.But people have become sheep and crooks know that. You'll just cower behind your bed and let him take what he wants That's sad. You're lucky it wasn't an actual intruder! Don't shoot things that you don't know what or who they are, duh Who just starts blasting bullets like that!? Of course they will.Fuck the police. They don't do shit. And they want you to not be able to protect yourself (in case they have to be against you).That being their advice makes me want to do that less.In this discussions situation, I'll be calling the police and telling them either a crook just got scared out of my home or that they need to come pick up his body.

Frankly, your examples are lame at best. I have a real live example for you guys to discuss.Recently, I have a really really really good friend who committed suicide because of a girl. She started out dating him but never slept with him. As soon as they moved in with each other, she quit her job. She then went to college, all of which paid for by him of course. Eventually, all his pay checks went straight to her. Many of us saw the manipulation from the beginning. We really began to beg him to realize that he'd been manipulated by this woman. Somehow, she got him to stop talking to his family, friends, and work mates. Right before he committed suicide, I was the only person left that he was willing to talk to.After his suicide, I was told by the investigators that that woman had cleaned out his bank account and repeatedly called survivor's benefits (he was a cop by the way). Fortunately, even though he told her he put her as his beneficiary, he actually put his mom down for it. She continued to call beneficiaries for the next couple weeks before she stopped.She came to the funeral with a couple of her girl friends and they laughed while the family were crying. The local police department had to ask them to leave.After the fact and everything had calmed down, I did a little digging and lo and behold my friend was not the first person to have been manipulated to give her everything and committed suicide. There was a guy down south that she met when she was 16 who gave her everything he had and then killed himself. The fact that she showed up at my friend's funeral and laughed tells me she took pride in driving men crazy to the point of suicide. Somehow, I suspect that she will soon seek out another potential victim for her manipulation.Since that time, my friend's family and I have been trying to seek a legal mean to stop her from doing this to someone else. Unfortunately, there just isn't a legal mean to stop her. It's not illegal to manipulate someone like that. It's not illegal to drive someone crazy and then put the gun in his hand.When justice fails, what do we do? Do we simply stand by and watch this woman continue to find other men who will give her everything they have and then kill themselves?

Difficult to say:

quote:

---

Few statistics are available on home invasion as a crime, because it is not technically a crime in most states. Persons charged with "home invasion" are actually charged with robbery, kidnapping, and assault charges.

---

But from the FBI, 2007 data:

quote:

---

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines burglary as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. To classify an offense as a burglary, the use of force to gain entry need not have occurred.

​

Of all burglaries, 61.1 percent involved forcible entry, 32.4 percent were unlawful entries (without force), and the remainder (6.5 percent) were forcible entry attempts.

​

Offenses for which time of occurrence was known showed that more residential burglaries (63.6 percent) occurred during the daytime while 56.4 percent of nonresidential burglaries occurred during nighttime hours.

---

There were a total of 16,929 murders and 90,427 rapes in the US in 2007 (resulting from breakins or otherwise, so definitely an upper limit), but there were 1,478,901 burglaries in residences. Even if we assume that all murders and rapes were the result of burglaries, only about 7% of all burglaries would result in rape or murder. Again, we're using all rapes/murdersin the US as an upper limit, while only including burglaries in residences; the actual number of muders/rapes from home intrusion would be significantly lower. Remember also, the FBIs definition of burglary is simply an unlawful entry into a structure to commit a felony or theft, with or without force involved.It appears that most burglaries happen during the day, when people tend to be at work. It also appears that violence is not the goal of the vast majority of intruders. This would be the macho posturing I spoke of eariler. "Growing a pair" is irrelevant. Rationally minimizing risk to myself, my loved ones, and others is the point. The best case scenario if I confront an intruder is that he simply surrenders and waits for the police. Other alternatives involve shooting him, missign and shooting a neighbor, getting shot myself, revealing that people are home and resulting in an assault on my girlfriend, etc. There are very few ways it can go right, and many ways it can go wrong.Refusing to kill another human being over what is vastly most likely to be a simple robbery is not "allowing crime;" it is the best possible course of action for society because it causes the least total harm. You may think me cowardly, but I think "shoot the fucker" responses are barbaric and irrational.And there is absolutely no way I can establish a deterrent against burglary other than a security system and a locked door. Whether I am armed or not, an intruder won't know until he's already entered my residence, meaning willingness and ability to kill absolutely cannot act as a deterrent.As I said, I will protect myself and my loved ones if we come under an iminent threat. Someone stealing my TV in my living room is not an iminent threat to my life. If he comes into the bedroom where I and my girlfriend are hiding, he becomes an imminent threat, the chances of avoiding a confrontation shrink to nearly nill, and the best course of action is to strike with whatever weapon is available to incapacitate or kill the intruder in defense of our lives. I simply allow for the distinction that, so long as the intruder is nothing more than a thief, I'd much rather deal with my renter's insurance and a police report than any of the alternatives. If violence is the intruder's goal, all you've done is told him where you are. I'd wait with the gun, and if he comes to the room where I'm hiding, I would then fire with no warning. I have the benefit of knowing exactly where he'll be if he enters the sole door, while he doesn't know where I'll be waiting in ambush. The best outcome is to avoid confrontation entirely, but I'm not advocating lying down and watching someone rape my girlfriend. I view confrontation as the last resort rather than the first response. This is most often the case. But if the intruder doesn't know that I'm home and that I've made the call, it's possible the police may arrive in time. If a confrontation is to be forced, it would still be far better for the police to force it than for me to do so. After all, they have body armor and training. You didn't read the entire paragraph, did you. I said that if confrontation is inevitable, ie, the intruder enters the room where I am hidden, "doing something about it" becomes my only available action. So long as confrontation is not inevitable, ie the intruder stays out in my living room and office where most of my valuables are, it's far safer for everyone involved including my neighbors if I simply stay hidden and wait for the police. How precisely will they "get the jump on me" in a way I can prevent? If they've just broken into my house, I've already lost the initiative. The only way to get it back is if they don't realize I'm home and to wait in ambush. If they immediately rush into the bedroom after breaking down the door (or whatever) I'm screwed no matter what I do. If they don't, I should be able to hide and call 911. What precisely are you advocating? It sounds like your position may be similar to mine (wait while armed) except that you would also shout a warning, thus revealing your location to the intruder and giving up the initiative you seem to believe is so important. Do you expect to sneak around ninja-style and surprise the intruder as opposed to a direct confrontation? What specific action do you reccomend? Burglaries happen regardless of the perceived testicular potency of the victim, CS. You're risking your life confronting an intruder who may be armed...why? Certainly not to protect your life, as we know that attempting to avoid confrontation is the safest course. Why then? To protect your property, which you won't be able to enjoy anyway if you're killed, and can replace if the thief succeeds? For some sense of "honor?" Would you really want to risk your life only to prove your manliness? I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity that I see no need to "prove myself" by playing the hero and winding up dead. I'll take action when it's warrented, as in when my life or the lives of others are in imminent danger, but to force a confrontation before then is foolhardy macho posturing, nothing mroe. Indeed. Had it been, shouting "Who's there?!" and coming out to force a confrontation to "protect" my girlfriendand myself who hadn't even been put into imminent danger yet would have been rught about the stupidest thing I could do. I would almost certainly have been killed, to be followed by the possible murder and/or rape of my girlfriend. I don't think I'd care much about my possessions at that point. In a home intrusion, how precisely are you supposed to know who or what they are? It could be a simplemistake as was my situation. It could be a theft. It could be an attempt at rape. I think the best situation is to wait and hide until it becomes apparent that violence is the intended or likely outcome, and only then respond with force. Whose advice would you listen to, CS? So far you haven't argued very well for forcing an immediate confrontation. You've suggested actions that reveal your position and don't provide a disincentive to an intruder who was planning violence anyway; you haven't provided a deterrent to prevent the intrusion from happening int eh first place. All you've done is made it more likely that you or someone else will be killed. Where is the benefit in that? Unless, of course, you're unable to call because you've been shot yourself, and the criminal is now having his way with your loved ones and your possessions anyway.It's interesting that your responses seem to contain the assumption that you will be successful in your defense of your home. What makes you think so? Do you have SWAT or Special Forces training, and know how to deal with intruders in a confined space while minimizing innocent casualties? Do you believe yourself to be invulnerable? Tactically, you've already suggested giving away your position by yelling out a warning. That suggests that you're trying to look and feel like a "big man," but you aren't thinking the situation through in terms of risk, potential cost and potential benefit.I'd rather take the cautious route, maximize the chances that I and my loved ones and neighbors (and even the intruder) will all see another day, and respond with force only as a last resort.

It sounds like your friend came across a real monster. I'm sorry for your loss.But as you said, it's not illegal to manipulate someone. What sort of solution could you possibly ever undertake? Murder would remove the problem, but would land you in prison or on Death Row; you might minimize net harm by preventing more deaths, but you'll have completely ruined your own life and that of your loved ones. Confrontation with the psychopath is unlikely to result in anything but laughter on her part and frustration on yours. Warning future boyfriends is likely to more firmly establish their trust of her as opposed to the random outsider accusing her of horrible things, and you may face stalking charges to boot.In this case, revenge is still not an effective answer because it still causes additional harm to the victims.Unfortunately, there isn't always an effective solution in life.

I've been obsessed with what her next move will be. Someone has suggested that I warn the next guys that she comes across with. I simply laughed into his face. The friend I lost and I were more than buddies. We were closer than close. And yet, I couldn't get him to see what was happening.This girl/woman has the gift of mind control. And it seems like she enjoys doing it to men.

What makes you think so? Would you rather take advantage of someone who's not going to offer any resistance or of someone who might just take your head off. The burglary per capita rate is almost double in the UK (a country with strict gun controls and a notoriously liberal sentencing system) than in the US (a country wih lax gun controls and a strict sentencing system).This fact alone would seem to indicate that the posiibility of armed resistance and harsh punishment does work as a deterrent, thereby shooting down your argument. That's a naive misconception. I've already shown you a link referring to data from the British Crime Survey which mentions that 1 in 10 burglaries in the UK involve violence or threatening behaviour. 1 in 10 is too large a probability to ignore. Again, you're assuming that the intruder is only there to take your TV and leave quietly. There's a 10% chance this won't be the case. By that stage you've lost any tactical advantage you might have had and handed it over to the intruder. You can't respond pro-actively any more, you can only react to his actions. If the intruder is intent on hurting you he now has a much greater chance of success. If an intruder enters your house armed, he's doing it for a reason. Chances are he intents to use the weapon he carries. Disaster has already been invited into your house whether you like it or not. It's up to you to take a pro-active stance in order to minimise the risk posed to you. Crouching in the cupboard, hoping he'll go away isn't such a pro-active stance. oh, what a surprise! so you found out what I've been saying all along: in situations like these you don't analyse and reason, you just react. If the intruder had been violent and you were hiding in the closet waiting for him to find you you'd certainly be dead! Of course they will! The police don't want to have Texas-style shootouts to deal with. That triples their paperwork and puts a strain on their resources. It's much easier to deal with a home-owner's corpse, after all the coroner will do most of the work with this one.Besides, if people started protecting themselves and applying justice the police would find themselves out of a job. Heaven forbid.Blimey, you are naive indeed!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

First: please provide the numbers supporting your crime statistics assertion.Second: an intruder has no way of knowing whether you are armed or not before an actual encounter takes place, ergo posession or willingness to use a firearm cannot act as a deterrent.Harsh sentencing certainly can act as a deterrent. I advocate making a punishment fit the crime in terms of the amount of real harm caused, meaning killing thieves is excessive unless they directly threaten you. I have severe doubts as to the real effectiveness of incarceration-based correctional systems (recidivism is extremely common, as would be expected when you cut someone off from all positive social influences and lock him up with other criminals), but that's a different topic. Which, of course, means that in 90% of cases burglaries do not involve violence or "threatening behavior," however that's defined. 90% is an overwhelming majority. It also means that 90% of the time, I'd be safe leaving an intruder to go about his business. I rather like those odds, particularly since I can still lie in wait with a gun pointed at the bedroom door and open fire the moment the intruder actually becomes an imminent threat. See my response to CS above. I assume nothing. I simply choose not to provoke a confrontation unnecessarily that may result in my death, the death of my loved ones, injury or death to neighbors, etc. If confrontation can be avoided, it should be - with no confrontation nobody gets hurt. If confrontation cannot be avoided, ie when an intruder actually enters the room I occupy, obviously responding with force is a viable and justified course. Clearly you've never heard of the tactic known as an "ambush." Lying in wait, hidden from immediate view, when you know exactly where your enemy will have to enter is a tactically perfect position. Consider that I know where the door to the room is, but an intruder, even if he believes I may be present at all, does not know where in the room I will be. In all likelihood I would be able to shoot him before he can even identify me as a target.This of course has the added benefit of corresponding to my ethical priorities: minimize the chances of anyone getting injured. I have no way of knowing whether an intruder is armed when he first enters the house, any more than he knows whether I am armed. If he is actively seeking me or my girlfriend to harm us, I can still deal with the threat by lying in wait and using force only when confrontation becomes inevitable. If he is not seeking to do us harm, I'm content to let him go about his business. Whatever he takes is not worth a human life, his or mine.You seem to believe that I'm supporting an utterly pacifistic position where I cower in fear and pray. This is not the case. I advocate the use of force in the defense of my life or the lives of others from immenent danger. An intruder in the living room is not an imminent threat. An intruder entering the room we occupy is, and I would be justified in using force in such an instance. Actually, this happened several years ago. My current position is partially due to the events of that evening. Analysis of course doesn't happen in the heat of the moment. It happens beforehand. You make your choice long before the point of decision. If I were to experience another home invasion, my actions would be different. Unless I had a gun pointed directly at the entrance and opened fire if the entrance were breached. Or if he failed to find me.In very few cases (statistically) does an intruder enter a home with the express purpose of killing the occupants. Typically the intruder wants something, and any violence is simply the result of an unintended confrontation. See the numbers I posted above: even with excessively generous upper and lower limits, only around 7% of all residence burglaries result in a murder or rape (using the sum total of all rapes and murders in the entire country as the upper limit; "generous" is quite the understatement).Forcing an unnecessary confrontation increases my chances to get hurt for little potential benefit.Waiting until an actual imminent threat emerges significantly reduces my risk while simultaneously retaining my ability to defend myself, including retaining the element of surprise and ground of my choosing with an obvious chokepoint my enemy would be forced through. Or perhaps the police would rather chase a thief instead of a murderer, would rather not have to go through an investigation to confirm that the intruder's death was justified homicide in self-defense...or, perhaps, are even interested in the wellbeing of the victim and would like to see their chances of getting hurt reduced. Your cinicism requires the police to be amoral lazy inhuman automatons seeking only to reduce paperwork regardless of the cost in human lives. Ah, yes. We should return to those halcyon days of Wild West justice, where rugged individualism reigned supreme and the proper response to an accusation of crime was "lynch him!" property rights are most definitely superior to the right to live.And din't you just insinuate that the police do not protect the public, and then suggest that a self-defending public would put the police out of the job you say they don't perform anyway? Says the paragon of moral virtue that honestly thinks shooting is the best response to what, in 90% of cases, will be a nonviolent robbery.

With pleasure! An intruder doesn't need to know you're armed, he just needs to suspect that you are. In the US with a large gun ownership, an intruder has good reason to believe that the homeowner may be armed. Suprisingly (or not), the rate of burglary per capita is almost half of that in the UK where gun ownership is strictly outlawed and the deterrent is minimal. Ergo, your claim that potential resistance doesn't act as a deterrent doesn;t hold much water. ..you like those odds? Are you serious ?! Here's a question for you then: do you wear a seat belt when you're driving a car? That's exactly what these poor boys thought and look what happened to them.Had they taken immediate and decisive action they moment they spotted the intruders they wouldn't have ended up tortured and hacked to bits. It's this definition of imminent danger that we disagree on. I find this to be a very naive position. An intruder anywhere in your house is an imminent threat. The fact that he intruded into your house means that he's intent on doing you some kind of harm. You're just hoping that it will be restricted to him stealing your TV and nothing worse. You do realise that some burglars use arson to cover their tracks after they leave the house, don't you? I find it incredible that you're happy to take a 7% odds against your life and run with it! You've heard of this swine-flu thingy haven't you? Do you know what it's mortality rate is? It's much, much less than 7%. Yet, people go out of their way to protect themselves from it. Governments shut down schools, people don't travel, mass immunisation is about to start, etc. All this for much bigger survival odds than you have in a home invasion. You're either a very cool and confident person or just extremely naive. what makes you think that the 'right to live' should be immutable and unconditional? I just insinuated that the police have other interests, purpose and priorities than protecting you individually and their advice reflects that.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

It would seem that France has a lower incidence of burglary than the US, despite having very strict gun control laws.Japan has 2 burglaries per 1,000 citizens (US has 7, UK has almost 14) and has outlawed all but sport weapons (rifles and shotguns). The Netherlands has similar restrictions on gun ownership (no gun license unless you belong to a hunting/sporting club, and then only guns appropriate for such purposes), and has about 5 burglaries per 1,000 citizens.It would seem that gun control laws are not actually correlated to a reduced incidence of burglary. Isn't that odd? Perhaps the possibility of firearm ownership is not an actual deterrent in the case of burglary? And yet, as I pointed out, other countries with extremely strong gun control laws have significantly lower burglary rates than the US. It would appear that your attempt to correlate the possibility of gun ownership with a lower incidence of burglary is complete bullshit. I'm not seeking out a burglary, Legend. I'm telling you my reaction if one occurs. In 90% of cases, I'll be safe by avoiding confrontation. Forcing a confrontation decreases my chance of survival, contrary to what you're suggesting. If the intruder is unarmed, I;d be safe either way. If the intruder is armed, whether he actually wanted to harm me or not, confrontation puts me at risk. Hiding only puts me at risk if the intruder is armed and wants specifically to do me harm and manages to find me and manages to somehow "get the drop on me" while I have a gun pointed directly at the doorway waiting to open fire if anyone enters.Taking a course of action that significantly increases your risk of injury as a "defense" against a situation that only has a 10% chance of occurring is foolhardy.This is significantly different from using a seatbelt, with decreases risk. And a single anecdote is supposed to convince me of the statistically demonstrable safest course of action...why, exactly? I try not to let irrational fear guide my decisions, Legend. Really? Are you sure? Perhaps they would have wound up in exactly the same position. All of your arguments depend on assuming that forcing a confrontation results in the victim overpowering the intruder. That's not the way reality works. If intruders are armed, there's a good chance forcing a confrontation will get you shot, even if the intruder intended to avoid a confrontation and only steal.In the real world, "immediate and decisive action" does not guarantee victory. Among other things, like the value of a human life. False assumption. It means that he may be intent on doing me harm. He may not. "Hoping" nothing. Statistically I have shown that in the vast majority of cases, my TV is all they want. I'm planning around statistical likelihoods rather than irrational fear over anecdotal horror stories, while hedging my bets by setting up a very easy ambush for an intruder should they actually seek to do real harm. You really think I should plan my defense around something that happens less than 1% of the time by taking action that will increase my risk in 90% of home intrusions?Are you incapable of reading statistics? You seem very poor at assessing risk. That's a misrepresentation of my position, and you know it. I like the odds of taking the course of action that is demonstrably the safest in 90% of cases, as opposed to the course of action that may be safer in 10% of cases but is more dangerous in the other 90%. Or I understand the difference between putting on a face mask to prevent the flu and forcing a confrontation with a possibly-armed intruder.Further, I'm not afraid in the least of swine flu. I have a greater chance of dying on my commute to work in the morning than I do of dying from swine flu. Other people can feel free to panic. I won't cancel my travel plans, I won't bother getting a flu shot, and I won't go out of my way to protect myself from something that seems to have a single-digit mortality rate, and that primarily amongst people who have compromised immune systems or poor access to health care, neither of which describes me.I take a rational approach to risk. I am not guided by my emotional "gut" reaction. I didn't say that. Considering how many times I've expressed willingness to kill if an intruder actually enters the room where I am hidden, this comment borders on outright lying.I said that property rights do not outweigh the right to love. If a man steals $1, $100, or $1,000,000, he doesn't deserve to die for it. If they do not effectively protect teh citizenry from attack as it is, how would a well-armed citizenry put the police "out of a job," Legend?I understand not trusting the police to have your best interests at heart. But your level of cynicism is unjustified. You really think the police will advise you to take an action that increases your risk? Who's advice would you listen to? "Common sense," that wonderful arbiter of accurate risk assessment that leads people, as you pointed out, to panic over SARS or the swine flu? That caused people to drive instead of fly after 9/11 even though their chances of survival would still have statistically been higher flying even if terrorists performed a 9/11 attack every day?Who's naive, Legend?The person who honestly thinks that increasing risk in 90% of home invasions to decrease risk in the remaining 10%, and bases his reactions around statistically unrepresentative anecdotes intended to cause fear rather than rational thought?Or the one who looks at the statistics and makes decisions based on what is most likely to result in no deaths, even if it costs me a TV and possibly increases my risk in a tiny minority of cases?

There'a reason I contrasted the UK to the US: both countries share to a great extent cultural and socio-political characteristics, they have similar cultural and social values, principles and ideologies. By having many things that are the same one can more easily distinguish and explain the things that are different, like the gun-culture and attitude to crime.France, for example, has a long tradition of egalitarianism, communal action and disregard for individualistic greed and ambition, dating back to the French Revolution. In the UK and particularly in the US individualistic ambition is considered an asset! France also has a higher percentage of rural population than either the UK or the US and the British Crime Survey has long established that burglary rates are more likely in urban areas. In addition, my French colleague informs me that in France you can legally own a shotgun or non-automatic rifle as long as you're registered with a shooting or hunting club, which is not the case in the UK.If factors like these are disregarded no valid correlation can be drawn between between deterrents and burglary rates.As for Japan, you must be having a laugh! Japan has a culture where pride and honour are highly-valued and revered. I have Japanese friends who wouldn't steal anything even if you paid them! To them it's "fumeiyo", the greatest sin. That's why crime is so low in Japan, not because of the strict gun laws.If you want to compare something, make sure it's like for like. Not if you're comparing apples to oranges. Or perhaps you're ignoring all the socio-cultural factors that affect burglary rates. It would appear that you're just disregarding a significant number of other factors that affect burglary rates. No, in 90% of cases you'll be safe. Period. In 10% of cases some kind of violence will be inflicted upon you whether you want it or not. I'm saying that 1 in 10 chance of bodily harm is too large to ignore. You can reduce those odds by taking pro-active and decisive action. That's a false and naive assumption. Violence is very effectively inflicted with bare hands or household items. And if the intruder knows you have a gun pointed at the door, he'll be very reluctant to come in. Which re-inforces my point about the possibility of resistance (especially armed resistance) acting as a very good deterrent! You haven't shown why you think that taking a decisive and pro-active action, like shooting/stabbing the intruder the moment you see them, increases your risk of injury. If the intruder is only there to steal and not inflict violence then your initial attack -or even warning of attack- will only send him fleeing. If the intruder is intent on inflicting violence anyway then surely your odds of survival won't be diminished by you attacking him first.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I initially joined this thread by replying to your Message 7 where you claimed

quote:

---

When a thief enters your home and tries to steal from you, immediate emotional reactions tend toward violence - if you have a gun, shoot the thief. The revenge motivation overrides common sense...

---

I responded by saying that this has nothing to do with revenge but is a response triggered by physiological factors and evolution.But in Message 10 you described this as..

quote:

---

Base instinct tends towards retribution in excess of what's actually necessary or wise. In the vast, vast majority of cases, the safest course of action in a home intrusion is to quietly call the police, and hide.

---

Which you re-affirmed in Message 19:

quote:

---

Being frozen in fear and staying out of the thief's way is generally the very best course of action anyway. Everyone involved is far more likely to escape with their lives if confrontation is avoided.

---

Now you've stopped talking about hiding in fear but actually setting up armed ambush instead. I can't help but feel that you've moved the goalposts a bit. You've either shifted your position or I've originally misunderstood you. In the interest of clarity and focus, your current position is that human life is invaluable until it enters your bedroom in a threatening manner, correct? then how much does he deserve to die for?and what about the emotional and psychological trauma that burglary inflicts on people? You seem to forget to bring that up. Does the intruder deserve to die for that or doesn't that even register in your worldview ?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"