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

In the scenario you mention revenge doesn't even enter the equation. When a thief enters your house, your 'fight-or-flight' mechanism is triggered and that's what leads to shooting the thief. Common sense has nothing to do with it, chemical reactions within your body do! Why?! what makes the thief's life so special? Please explain.

---

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

No, basic instinct is just to make use of the adrenalin that floods your body for one of two purposes: fight or flight. If you're in your own home flight is not normally an option, as your sub-consious already considers your home the safest place to be and also if you have family in the house at the time. If you choose not to fight then all that's going to happen is that the hormones in your body will start working against you causing panic and/or fear paralysis. The phrase 'frozen in fear' hasn't been coined for no reason you know. It's not an emotional response, it's a physiological response. You have very little control over it We're not talking about any human life. We're talking about a specific human life, one that will cause you -at best- intense psychological damage or -at worst- extinguish your own life and that of your loved ones.Is those persons' life worth anything at all? or these one's. No, IMO their lives ain't worth shit. Some human lives (as above) just shouldn't be replaced. why would you want to?

---

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

Of course it does!On a psychological level it helps to propagate a sense of justice -or 'karmic effect'- across society. People start to feel that if you do something bad it'll come back and bite you.On a more practical level, since many thieves are repeat offenders, killing the thief very likely prevents more misery and/or harm being inflicted upon other innocent parties. But that's my whole point: it's *not* a choice. Choice implies clear thinking and reasoning ability. These are luxuries you just don't have when woken out of bed at 4am by the sound of broken glass.Revenge has nothing to do with this. In such situations you're just following physiological responses that have been honed by millenia of evolution. Revenge doesn't even come into it.

---

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

I disagree. It's a course of action that places you in the intruder's mercy. You are *assuming* best intentions on the intruder's behalf. It's not up only up to you to avoid confrontation. If the intruder desires confrontation you can't avoid it. The only thing you can do is make sure you come out on top. Like I said, it's a response that has evolved over millenia with very good reason: it helps people survive. It's anything but stupid. And again, it's a physiological response, *not* a feeling. If you feel threatened in your own home and you have a gun nearby you're going to use the gun not start doing some soul-searching. Since I'm not in your home, posing a clear and present danger to you, that probably wouldn't be justified. Since I'm not in your home, posing a clear and present danger to you, your opinion of my ethics is pretty irrelevant. How do you know he's there to steal your TV and not beat you up, rape your wife and torture your kids? Why are you assuming best intentions on behalf of the intruder? Wrong. In the UK violence or threatening behavior is used in 10% of burglaries. That's a significant percentage. Why are you assuming best intentions on behalf of the intruder? It's not about putting a value on life, it's about accepting that someone's right to life shouldn't diminish your right to life. Exactly! Like I said, you don't know if he's there to steal your TV or to beat you up, rape your wife and torture your kids. how very noble of you! I wonder if that's what you'll be thinking when you hear your front door being kicked in at 4am ? I don't particularly care where he is as long as he's no longer a threat to me, my family and my property. the benefit of "an eye for an eye" is that people don't abuse other people unless they're prepared to lose an eye. Neither have I. So do I. That doesn't mean that I will allow others to trample all over my right to life. Being burgled, tortured and killed by a potentially good person is no consolation now, is it? First, you're *assuming* that they're only going to take replaceable property, I'm not. Second, killing someone who's intruded in your home and therefore represents a clear and present danger to you and your family is as fair as they come, IMHO. Third, allowing someone's right to live to infringe upon other people's right to live is patently unjust and unfair and therefore removing their life under such circumstances is just. Because he's killing me to steal my TV. I, on the other hand, am killing him in fear of my and my family's safety. His rights cannot infringe my rights. SImple as that.

---

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

well said!I was going to write something along those lines but you beat me to it.

---

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

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"

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"

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"

I did try to look at two societies with similar socio-cultural characteristics but different crime rates and I put forward the hypothesis that the lower burglary rate in the US could be attributed to the greater deterrent, i.e. loose gun laws which level the playing field for home-owners and harsher sentencing for burglars, robbers and thieves. You can try to shoot it down if you like but incredulous questioning doesn't really contribute either way. That's not a fact, and you haven't shown it is. Of course I realise and accept that many other factors affect crime rates. That's why comparing countries such as Japan and even France to the UK/US is counter-productive as their 'other factors' are so numerous. I looked at two societies that share many cultural values and three things that stick out as very different is the attitude to gun ownership, stricter sentencing for criminals and the lower US burglary rate. I therefore find it quite plausible that the first two are related to the latter. My view is supported by the common-sensical axiom that a would-be burglar would be deterred by the probability of the home-owner owning a gun and being likely to use it. It's the same reasoning process that stops people from picking fights with people who are likely to hurt them. Because, unlike you, I compared countries which share many socio-cultural values. When many things are similar you can more easily distinguish the things that are different. I compared two countries which share many socio-cultural values. When many things are similar you can more easily distinguish the things that are different. If the ban was in effect for 30 years why are you cherry-picking just one year to illustrate your point? Where are the overall numbers? Until you can see the numbers before the ban, during the ban and some years after the end of the ban you can't draw any conclusions. Like you say it's too early to tell just yet and you'll also need to factor in all the other things that have changed in that period, e.g. drug usage, unemployment and poverty rates, etc. Although I can't really reject your ambush defense I still think that it isn't the best course of action for three reasons:1) Sometimes it increases risk. It can be done if you're living by yourself but with having a family and especially with the children being in separate rooms you can't just wait and hope that your wife or kids won't panic and make a noise. Even more worryingly you're giving the intruder the chance to come upstairs and put himself within harm's range of your family. Why take that risk?2) By waiting in ambush you're giving the intruder a tactical advantage. When he first enters your house he's at his most ignorant and therefore at his most vulnerable. He doesn't know the layout of the house, the lay of the land so to speak, how many people live there, where they are located, etc. The only thing he does know is his entry point, the window or door he came in from, which can be also used as his exit point. This is the time to attack him. if he's not incapacitated by the attack his first instinct would be to flee and that's bound to be through his only known route. It's all about not giving him time to think and choices to make. You give him just enough time for the adrenalin to kick in and you allow him only one choice: flee. if you wait upstairs in ambush you give him the time to assess the layout of the house, how many people live there, where they're likely to be, how wealthy they are, etc. He can then decide if he just wants to steal your TV and leave or if he'd like to torture you until you give him your credit card number and then rape your wife as he's just seen her picture in a bikini on the mantlepiece and she looks hot. Why take that risk?3) When you're in a confrontational situation time is against you. You MUST take action, fight or flight, that's what nature has programmed us for. If you just do nothing or just wait in ambush the adrenalin that's gathering inside your body will cause a build up of lactic acid on muscle tissue (since you're not using your muscles to fight nor to flee) which in turn produces a feeling of weakness and the loss of endurance capability in the muscle. In short, the more time you wait in ambush the less effective you're going to be. Why take that risk?Now the real issue is: none of the above will matter if the intruder only wants to take your TV and leave. The thing is *you don't know that*. Statistically violence against you will happen less than 10% of the time. But, like I've been saying all along you put your seatbelt on for much smaller odds than that. Why should you value your life more when you're in a car than in your own home facing a situation that you didn't initiate or cause?

---

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

That's just not true! The criminal side -by definition- aren't going to abide by any gun-control legislation. That's why they're called 'criminals' in the first place.Gun controls means that the people who have a legitimate need for a gun (i.e. home owners for self-defense) aren't allowed to have one. It has absolutely no bearing on people who want a gun for illegitimate reasons. It's an old cliche but it's very true! The problem is that the legal system and the police are there to deal mostly with the after-effects of violence. When you're woken up in the middle of the night by the sound of broken glass, no legal system or police will be there to protect you. That's very noble of you. It's a shame that such sentiments don't register with the meth-addicted juvenile who's in your house about to steal your TV or worse.As for the "preemptive strike" mentality: countless states throughout the world have been applying it for centuries and still are, as the Iraq Invasion has shown. If you think civilisation has outgrown it, you'd better think again!

---

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

I'm using it as evidence that CIVILISATION HASN'T OUTGROWN THIS MENTALITY, as RAZD thinks.If you had bothered to read the whole paragraph it would have been obvious to you too.

---

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

Not confusing at all. I am a big proponent of pre-emptive strikes, though in the case of home invasion you can hardly call it pre-emptive as the intruder already has taken action against you by invading your house and you're just re-acting to it.The sad affair of the Iraq Invasion has no bearing on the value of pre-emptive strike strategy, it just shows how a pre-text for violence can be founded on false evidence and outright lies. I have experienced three burglaries in the past (one aggravated) and have closely witnessed many fights (and been involved in a couple) when I used to work behind the bar at a somewhat dodgy drinking establishment. Which is why I have a healthy dose of skepticism when people idealistically talk about minimising risk, avoiding killing people and such like. The reality is that noble emotions don't even come into play in such situations. The biological response will always prevail whether that's running, fighting or staying frozen to the spot while your bowels empty themselves.Edited by Legend, : grammar

---

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

..ugh? I'm only stating the facts not trying to change them. Fact: Gun-control legislation only manages to disarm the law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. Fact: Despite the UK having arguably the strictest gun control laws in the world, gun crime has been steadily rising on a yearly basis.These are the facts whether you like it or not. if you think these aren't correct now is a good time to show why. I'm glad we both agree that gun controls don't work. I also agree with you that harsher sentencing for gun possession and -more importantly- the gun and gang culture explains why more US criminals carry guns than Uk/Canadian ones.So....? what is your point? Is that supposed to be consolation for when you're confronted by a gun-totting criminal in the Uk or Canada? Will the fact that it was less likely to happen make your shooting easier to accept or less painful? Nonsense. Carrying a gun is no more playing "cowboy vigilante" than wearing you car seatbelt is playing "Formula 1 racing pilot". They're both means of protecting yourself should something dreadful happen.

quote:

---

” In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm injuries - in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone - than with intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the firearm itself.10
” The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will result in serious injury or death.

---

Until you can compare these figures and odds with the odds of preventing or defending yourself with a gun against assault or robbery they don't say much to me other than that some people should be more careful. But we knew that already. Yes and yes. What's your point again? That's a nice mantra but what have you actually shown other than the US is a much more violent society? Which we knew already. You *just don't know that!* You don't know if the burglar would still have proceeded if there was a high probability of you being in the house and armed. Maybe the burglar didn't worry much about whether you'd be in or not as chances were you weren't going to be armed. You just don't know. What you do know is that most people won't pick a fight they have a good chance of losing. Any burglar thinking rationally won't burgle a house where there's a possibility of armed resistance. Yes that is the problem, but here we're talking about prevention not cure. We're talking about dealing with the symptoms not fighting the cause. We're discussing what to do when confronted by the intruder in your home, not about the ills of western society. What it does is give gun owners the safety and peace of mind that they're doing all they can to protect themselves, their family and their property. It gives them the sense of equality and fairness of playing on the same level field as the criminals. ...ugh?! who said that? I just showed you that pre-emptive strikes are still popular, despite what you claimed. I never said that they are 'right' because they are popular. I'd guess you must have read some other poster's post. Yet here we have the most advanced nation on the planet applying a pre-emptive strike with the direct participation of another G8 nation and the implicit approval of countless others. So, no, I don't think that civilisation has outgrown pre-emptive strikes, regardless of how hard it was to assemble the coallition. That's very wise. Next time you find an armed intruder in your house make sure to mention it to him.

---

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

In an idealistic scenario where all guns are instantly removed from the land, then you would arguably have a point.The reality is that guns can never just disappear. Criminals will continue to use them regardless of any laws and legislation. All gun controls do is tilt the playing field in the favour of the criminals. I support levelling the playing field so that criminals and home-owners alike have equal access to the same tools.

---

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