Summations Only

Is lethal force the only form of self defence? Utter rubbish. why do you think that without a gun, a person is completely defenceless?
Why do you think that lethal force is the only defence?
In a physical conflict, the best defence of all is to get your self out of the dangerzone, i.e. run away= not lethal.
I agree that removing a gun does not remove the capacity to be lethal, but it does remove the possibility that a momentary, instantaneous (bad) judgement could result in the death of someone who does not deserve to die. bollocks. Defence does not = lethal force, and lethal force is not the only defence. Then why do you support making it easy for people to be killed as a result of bad judgement while committing a relatively minor crime? If there is an imminent threat/danger to your life. but if you catch someone stealing your DVD player can you shoot them in the back as they run away? is that self defence? sigh... ok, "allowing people to arm themselves" Well shooting someone dead for burglary, seems to me to be bad judgement.
Shooting someone dead for shoplifting seems to me to be bad judgement.
Shooting someone dead for carjacking seems to me to be bad judgement

Clearly in the homicide cases CS listed earlier (to which my posts are referring) this "goal" of non-lethal behaviour change was not achieved.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

In the sense of preventing (further) bodily harm to yourself? It is a form of defence.
Lesson 1 in any martial arts "self defence" class will tell you this. Okay, well you've not been reading my posts. My whole argument here has been about trying to ascertain whether you think someone deserves to die for, e.g. committing burglary, and whether or not you think the the general public are best equipped to act as judge, jury and executioner, and administer that punishment. Possession of a gun allows for a split second decision or reflex to result in the immediate death of someone. a fist or a frying pan? not so much.
(or are you saying that a fist is as lethal as a gun?) Do YOU consider it to be self defence, do you consider it to be a reasonable course of action to safeguard your DVD player? What you are doing is assuming that every crime committed presents an immediate danger to the victim's life, and is only defensible by lethal force.You provided the original list of gun deaths, you tell me.
If "Burglary" is listed as the reason for the shooting, I assume"Burglary" was the crime being commited. If "Assault" was listed as the reason for the shouting, I assume the crime being committed was "Assault".If I come downstairs and catch someone stealing my DVD player, is the correct/reasonable action to blow his brains out?
because by arming....no...*sigh*.. allowing people to arm themselves with guns... you are allowing a situation where every startled victim of crime has the power to instantly without thought or reflection blow someone elses brains out. The list of gun deaths YOU provided shows this in action.

it's not about "capacity", it's about ease, speed and the possibility of accidental death.
With a firearm it is easy for an average joe, untrained and startled to make a bad judgement and kill someone. It's not so easy to "accidentally" beat someone to death. So why do you want to allow every citizen to be armed? you must see that this ends in death? (30,000-ish per year i think from some statistics presented in this thread).
That's like saying:
"I do not believe in personal point to point transportation for the masses"
...and then insisting that everyone should have a car. Ridiculous. Call it what you will, semantics, the end result is death, in many cases for a minor crime, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is key... Do you think that everyone has the skills and the level head to make a correct decision in this case? to make their actions proportionate to the "need"?
I do not. by your logic, anyone with functioning limbs has a deadly weapon, so that would mean every crime? maybe you should read what you post?
from your list:

quote:

---

[5/30/14] Cheswold (DE) resident shoots at burglary suspects (doverpost.com)

---

how can you reconcile this with:

quote:

---

So why do you want to allow every citizen to be armed?

I don't.

---

So you advocate gun control? why are we arguing?

quote:

---

Call it what you will, semantics, the end result is death, in many cases for a minor crime, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But you think burglary is a minor crime... I think that someone breaking into my house is a major crime, very near the top.

---

A crime that the burglar deserves to die for?

quote:

---

to make their actions proportionate to the "need"?

There is nobody else there to assess the need besides the person who is defending themself.

---

And you have admitted that you don't think the average Joe is equipped to make the right decision in such a case, but yet, you defend (or at least appear to be defending their right) to arm themselves? weird. Fair enough, I understood your list to be homicides, but a cursory seach will throw up countless examples of burglars being shot dead.
But by your own admission,

quote:

---

Do you think that everyone has the skills and the level head to make a correct decision in this case?

No.

---

So, in this case no one was killed, but the next guy? and the next? will they be able to fire that warning shot over the head or will the cock up and blow someone's brains out?You have some massive conflicts here:
On the one hand
- You believe everyone has the right to self defense,
- You believe removing the capacity for lethal force "eliminates" a persons ability to defend themselves
- You believe in the right to bear arms of US (world?) citizenshowever
- You do not believe the average person has the ability to make a sound judgement about how and when to use a firearm
- You do not believe that death is a suitable punishment for any crimeSo, you want to give people who are not equipped to judge, a firearm and hence the ability to instantaneously kill someone with the twitch of a finger, while also believing that no one should die for any crime...Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

so you don't need a gun to shoot at burglars then. The victim is often the person shot dead when mistaken for an intruder, for being in the wrong neighbourhood at the wrong time, for being a child who picks up a parent's gun, for being in the cinema/office/classroom when a nutball goes postal.
less guns = less gun deaths. You mean people who are suspected of breaking into other peoples houses?
well, because I believe in due process, I believe that everyone has the right to be tried in a court of law, and not have their brains summarily blown out by a frightened gun toting idiot.Edited by Admin, : Fix underlining.

So a gun isn't necessary for self defence? I agree. We were talking about a whole range of crimes, (which you presented) where use of a firearm was involved as a"self defence" measure. I have been consistently questioning the ability of people to judge when appropriate force was required.. this is entirely the subject. So, you don't think a court should decide if a crime has been commited? Bollocks. stop misrepresenting me. You equate due process and the principal of innocent until proven guilty with taking away peoples right to defend themselves? bizarre.
I don't think that anyone should get to act as Judge, jury and executioner in an fear fueled moment.

Ok.. you are utterly twisting and misrepresenting everything i say,I barely have time to look at this every few days, and have no interest in going round and round while you are clearly reading something other that what is written.
If you truely believe that I am you have some very basic reading comprehension issues.I'll leave you to it.

really? are you sure?
A 5 minute google search gives us this: Connecticut man kills suspected burglar, then learns it's his teenage son
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/...then-learns-its-his-teenage-son Father Shoots And Kills 14-Year-Old Daughter, Saying He Mistook Her For Burglar
http://thinkprogress.org/...-daughter-saying-mistook-burglar Stepdad who shot teen girl is decorated Fort Carson officer
http://gazette.com/...ed-fort-carson-officer/article/1511573 Wandering man with Alzheimer’s disease mistaken for a burglar, shot and killed
Wandering man with Alzheimer’s disease mistaken for a burglar, shot and killed — New York Daily News Polk mom mistakes daughter for boyfriend, shoots and kills her
Police: Polk mom mistakes daughter for boyfriend, shoots and kills her Woman shot dead after traffic accident as she tries to get help
Detroit Free Press High school track star shot and killed after jumping out of closet in prank gone horribly wrong: father
High school track star shot and killed after jumping out of closet in prank gone horribly wrong: father — New York Daily News Orlando boy shoots, kills younger brother, 12, after mistaking him for a home invader
Orlando boy shoots, kills younger brother, 12, after mistaking him for a home invader — New York Daily News teen had been drinking, was mistakenly shot he when entered wrong house
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html Yakima man shoots pregnant wife, mistaking her for an intruder
Yakima man shoots pregnant wife, mistaking her for an intruder - oregonlive.com Man shoots wife; claims he thought she was intruder
LPD: Man shoots wife; claims he thought she was intruder Teen shot after relative mistakes him for an intruder
404

I've been making a very straight forward point, again and again and you've been dancing around it right from the get go, when percy responded to your blatant misreading of my post. I have shown that your average Joe/Joanne with a gun in their hand is not a reliable judge of whether a crime has actually been committed or not and they are not a reliable judge as to whether lethal force is required or not. The corpses back this up.I've attempted to make this point again and again and you've willfully misrepresented me and avoided responding to the point I was making.legal or illegal, intentional or unintentional, these people have died, and had there not been a gun available most if not all of them would not have been killed.
with out a gun there would have been time to identify themselves and the error/mistake would have been apparent.
But because guns were readily available, these people are now dead.You keep on dancing.

Seriously?
I've dumbed this down just about as far as it can go, If you're not getting my point by now you never will.
Carry on.

Dumb enough to keep you guessing..

Six people have been shot dead and at least one other wounded in three locations near Philadelphia, officials in the US state of Pennsylvania say.
Pennsylvania shootings: Six dead, gunman on the run - BBC News

Most Car drivers are perfectly law abiding, but there are still APPROPRIATE laws in place to control
-who can drive.
-What vehicles can be driven on a public road
-Where a vehicle can be driven
-how road worthy a vehicle must be before it is drivenIt genuinely boggles my mind that, in the US at least, you must pass a driving test before getting behind a wheel. but you can pick up a gun having never held one before.
Bonkers.

So, NCIS checks were introduced over a decade ago, with 700,000 denials.
As mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998. i.e. 700,000 Less people have guns than would otherwise have had without NCIS checks.As a result of this, firearm related homicides are down. Conclusion: less guns in circulation than there would otherwise have been results in less homicides.congratuations! you have provided a good case for further gun control as a way of reducing homicides.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.