Summations Only

Jar writes:How would you know I feel less secure?

And is "feeling secure" desirable or healthy?

CS writes:How do your laws go about determining whether or not an amount of force was reasonable?

Reasonable Force
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable: (R v Clegg 1995 1 AC 482 HL). Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

Faith writes:But why are you arguing with me about the need for laws regulating guns? Where have I said I oppose that? It's possible, I suppose, that I said something somewhere that sounds like I oppose it though I don't remember saying it and nobody has quoted me on the subject, but as I sit here now I don't have any objection at all to reasonable laws regulating private ownership of guns.

Message 55 of 2928 (684015)It's not that we have too many guns it's that they aren't in service when they are needed, and we certainly DON'T need more gun control. The founders knew what they were doing. When guns are not available to private citizens for self defense and defense in such situations as these shootings, soon the whole population is at the mercy of criminal and government powers, standing armies and so on. The founders knew what they were doing. BUT more of the citizen owners of guns need to be packing them, especially these days.

Faith writes:But why are you arguing with me about the need for laws regulating guns? Where have I said I oppose that?

OK, yes I think a lot of the gun control you guys want is crazy.

Results: Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership. Conclusion: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.

Unfortunately, any further waiting for more convincing evidence may jeopardize more rigorous approaches to gun control, since beyond a certain point significantly reducing the number of guns in the hands of private citizens becomes a hopeless task. Therefore, the crucial policy question is: How much time do we have left to wait for more research, particularly in countries where gun ownership is not widespread and where social policies aimed at restraining its increase might be most beneficial in terms of reducing violence?

Results: In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates. Conclusion: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

Cat Sci writes:In the above situation, the more Protestants you have the more suicides you have, but being a Protestant doesn't necessarily cause people to commit suicide.

You can keep repeating it: "But the more Protestants you have the more suicides you have!" and your still not going to convince anybody because it is vapid and/or vacuous.

herebedragons writes:Percy, and no one else as far as I can tell, is not arguing that the answer is to reduce the number of legal gun owners

Faith writes:Oh NONSENSE! How hard can it be to get this simple point

Tangle writes:The rest of the world looks at you and can't understand your lack of obvious action - I could see it in Obama's eyes - he knows that he can't and won't do anything and that he's got another 4 years where there will be another two, 3 or 4 of these and he won't do anything because he can't.And the gun lobby maniacs will carry on their fantasy arguments.People's beliefs are truly weird.