Looking for a 'news' story about an experiment with kids and guns

[mike_the_wino]

"What if I want a PPSh just cause I like WW2 stuff? (and no just owning it isn't good enough I want to shoot it)" You can have it if you have it deactivated, if you want to shoot it, bad luck. You're not allowed to drive your car at 160kph on the highway because it endangers others, same rules for guns.

Well, if it's conforming to a legally defined configuration, why not? Oh wait...your gubmint doesn't trust you with one. <insert glib comment about Odstralia and penal colony>

And before the wheels come completely off the wagon, let's get back to the original topic: children and guns. I was asking for a very specific news report of research and I appreciate ll of the great links you guys provided. Thank you. That being said, I don't give two sh*ts about whether guns are good or bad. The reality is that guns in the US ARE legal. All of this posturing about hypotheticals is great mental masturbation but has nothing to do with the real world.

In the real world I have a child that is getting into to everything and this is something I wanted to account for. How do I keep my kid from being one of those kids that either shoots another or is shot by another kid? My wife and I were talking about hence the original question. We don't have loaded guns in our house but how do you account for the parents of friends of your children?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Drugs and guns are in no way comparable in terms of their "smugglability". $1000000 worth of drugs is a substantially smaller and easier concealed shipment as opposed to a similar value of "Midnight Specials".

The dollar value is irrelevant. Portability is what matters, and in that aspect guns are very easy to smuggle. A handgun is smaller than a kilo of Cocaine. And in fact there is already a thriving gun smuggling system along the Mexican border.

If you make guns illegal then a large amount of infrastructure and cost associated with administering the legalities automatically goes out the window.

Pennys on the dollar compared to what would be required to effectively enforce a ban.

I am sure out of 14 Trillion dollars and amount can be found, short term, to offer to buy anyone's gun.

I'm sure that out of 14 trillion dollars the amount could be found, short term, to make the head of every household in Afghanistan a millionaire. That doesn't mean it's feasible.

A criminal may well find themselves with a choice, hold up a liquor store and risk arrest for $50 or get a guaranteed $500 (or whatever) if they sell their gun.

Yes, the criminal will sell his gun for $500 or whatever, then use that money to buy another gun on the black market for $300 and make a nice profit at taxpayer expense.

Personal protection. Think of the logic. If someone has a gun and threatens you with it you have two choices 1. Give them what they want or 2. Pull your own gun. In the first instance you lose your wallet, in the second you are almost certain that the assailant will "attempt to defend himself" and there is a good chance you will be shot, and a good chance you will die.

That scenario assumes the assailant has the drop on you and only wants your money, in which case the smart move would indeed be to just give him your wallet, armed or not. But the bad guys don't always have the upper hand, and some of them want something more valuable than money.

[-E]

But the bad guys don't always have the upper hand, and some of them want something more valuable than money.

They're NOT getting my CMBB!

[Magpie_Oz]

The dollar value is irrelevant. Portability is what matters, and in that aspect guns are very easy to smuggle. A handgun is smaller than a kilo of Cocaine. And in fact there is already a thriving gun smuggling system along the Mexican border.

The dollar value is what it is all about. A kilo of Cocaine is worth a heck of a lot more than a kilo of handguns. It is not the concelability of a single item that is important but the concealability of a valuable amount. A Kilo of Coke will fit in a suitcase, a $1mill worth of guns would take a shipping container.

Reckon you could swallow a revolver wrapped in a condom?

Oh and by the by, most guns smuggled across the Mexican border go the other way, into Mexico to the Drug cartels.

"It has been reported that more than 500 Romanian manufactured AK-47s (WASR-10) smuggled to Mexico were legally imported into the United States from Europe by Century Arms International despite a U.S. ban on the importation of certain configurations of semi-automatic assault rifles."

Pennys on the dollar compared to what would be required to effectively enforce a ban.

Why would a ban cost more? The current police force uncover guns all the time at the moment, it would be just that now they confiscate them and arrest those in possession of them saving the expense of sorting through a register or finding out they have taken someone into custody for no reason.

I'm sure that out of 14 trillion dollars the amount could be found, short term, to make the head of every household in Afghanistan a millionaire. That doesn't mean it's feasible.

Glad you brought that up. To date the US has spent 1.7 trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan. You could buy back a butt load of guns for that amount.

Yes, the criminal will sell his gun for $500 or whatever, then use that money to buy another gun on the black market for $300 and make a nice profit at taxpayer expense.

You don't think the gun dealers would get to that assumption first? Sell their guns in bulk and make a wad and then the criminals wouldn't be able to buy guns to sell to the govt ...... HANG ON ! they wouldn't be able to get guns at all.... hey how about that?

That scenario assumes the assailant has the drop on you and only wants your money, in which case the smart move would indeed be to just give him your wallet, armed or not. But the bad guys don't always have the upper hand, and some of them want something more valuable than money.

If you shoot somebody who doesn't "have the upper hand" you have committed murder, self defence only comes in if you are in fear of your life Rambo.

[Charlie Marlow]

Oh and by the by, most guns smuggled across the Mexican border go the other way, into Mexico though the US BATF and to the Drug cartels.

Fixed it for you.

[Magpie_Oz]

Fixed it for you.

Not I meant what I said, blaming your own government for the reverse osmosis on the "leaky" border was your idea

[Magpie_Oz]

Well, if it's conforming to a legally defined configuration, why not? Oh wait...your gubmint doesn't trust you with one. <insert glib comment about Odstralia and penal colony>

And before the wheels come completely off the wagon, let's get back to the original topic: children and guns. I was asking for a very specific news report of research and I appreciate ll of the great links you guys provided. Thank you. That being said, I don't give two sh*ts about whether guns are good or bad. The reality is that guns in the US ARE legal. All of this posturing about hypotheticals is great mental masturbation but has nothing to do with the real world.

In the real world I have a child that is getting into to everything and this is something I wanted to account for. How do I keep my kid from being one of those kids that either shoots another or is shot by another kid? My wife and I were talking about hence the original question. We don't have loaded guns in our house but how do you account for the parents of friends of your children?

Are you actually serious ?

On one hand criticise my country because we are not allowed to have sub-machine guns and started out as a penal colony (just like the US by the way) and on the other ask for parenting strategies on how to stop your children being shot by their friends parents !

I'd rather be in a country that has a convict distant past than live in one that has lived under the law of the gun right from birth to present day.

[womble]

...parenting strategies on how to stop your children being shot by their friends parents !

To be fair, I think it was more "...how to stop your children getting involved with stupidity involving guns when your friends' parents might not have the good firearms care discipline that your child is used to at home..."

I can envisage a regulatory structure that imposes "reasonable" conditions on the owners of guns, in the same sort of vein that gun owners here in Blighty have to have secure gun cabinets and can be inspected to ensure that the guns are being kept safely locked away. The burden of enforcement would be very large for such a scheme in America, no matter how sane it was. It would end up being just another thing to throw at people who were discovered not complying with the regulations.

[Charlie Marlow]

started out as a penal colony (just like the US by the way)

First English colony in the US was Jamestown, founded in 1607. It was a commercial venture.

First Representative local body was the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1619.

The capital of the colony moves, but the Virginia colonial government is a representative one made up of free Englishmen, not convicts.

[mike_the_wino]

"It has been reported that more than 500 Romanian manufactured AK-47s (WASR-10) smuggled to Mexico were legally imported into the United States from Europe by Century Arms International despite a U.S. ban on the importation of certain configurations of semi-automatic assault rifles."

The WASR-10 is a legal variant of the AK. The semi-auto ban is by make not design.

On one hand criticise my country because we are not allowed to have sub-machine guns and started out as a penal colony (just like the US by the way) and on the other ask for parenting strategies on how to stop your children being shot by their friends parents !

I didn't criticize, I made a snarky comment. You can do whatever floats your boat in your country we will do what we want. Seems reasonable to me....oh wait reason isn't your forte (yes, that is a personal jab) as evidence by:

Thing is there are hundreds of other ways to get around the constitution.

What the feck is that about? Why look for ways to 'get around the constitution'? Because you don't agree with it? Move. There are plenty of other countries out there, no need to take up space here. I see you are all ready in Australia. Great. Stay there. Enjoy. Throw a shrimp on the barbie and crack a Fosters.

And where the hell did I ask yours, or any one else, for their opinion on 'parenting strategies'? Your delusional self-importance is boggling but misguided. I asked for information. That's it. You want to turn this into an anti-gun, America-bad thread I can't stop you.

You seem to be making a bunch of noise for noise sake and not really contributing.

[womble]

And where the hell did I ask yours, or any one else, for their opinion on 'parenting strategies'?

How do I keep my kid from being one of those kids that either shoots another or is shot by another kid? My wife and I were talking about hence the original question. We don't have loaded guns in our house but how do you account for the parents of friends of your children?

There. Wasn't your original post, but you did ask.

[dieseltaylor]

It would seem to me very difficult to diplomatically try to police the risk to your child from friends parents. As a general rule making the parents culpable for the homicide would be a good start. However I notice a recent case where the murder weapon was "found" outside the home by the child.

There are practical difficulties but certainly an arduous register of guns would help tie weapons to people.

[mike_the_wino]

There. Wasn't your original post, but you did ask.

True womble. You got me there. But in reality it was more of thinking out loud sort of thing.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The dollar value is what it is all about. A kilo of Cocaine is worth a heck of a lot more than a kilo of handguns. It is not the concelability of a single item that is important but the concealability of a valuable amount. A Kilo of Coke will fit in a suitcase, a $1mill worth of guns would take a shipping container.

Reckon you could swallow a revolver wrapped in a condom?

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. We are talking about how easy or difficult it is to smuggle the items, not how much money they can be resold for.

Oh and by the by, most guns smuggled across the Mexican border go the other way, into Mexico to the Drug cartels.

"It has been reported that more than 500 Romanian manufactured AK-47s (WASR-10) smuggled to Mexico were legally imported into the United States from Europe by Century Arms International despite a U.S. ban on the importation of certain configurations of semi-automatic assault rifles."

Correct. And going the other direction would be no more difficult.

Why would a ban cost more? The current police force uncover guns all the time at the moment, it would be just that now they confiscate them and arrest those in possession of them saving the expense of sorting through a register or finding out they have taken someone into custody for no reason.

The ban would only be effective if we could stop guns coming into the country. I have no idea what that would cost, or even if any amount of money would be sufficient given the area and volume of traffic, but what we are spending now is obviously not working and increasing funding is very difficult, both financially and politically.

Arizona lawmakers are hoping to raise around $50 million for border fencing with a new online public fundraising plan that launches Wednesday – despite skepticism from key stakeholders.

Under legislation signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April, the state would use inmate labor and money pulled in through the website to fence in some of the 82 miles of border between Arizona and Mexico that remain open.

Despite support from top state officials, the initiative is already facing problems. Private land owners and county sheriffs are skeptical that fencing even works and don’t plan on contributing, while the federal government may not even allow construction on its land.

Some of the biggest stakeholders in border security, including sheriffs and private land owners near the border, appreciate Smith’s efforts but said they aren’t sure they will donate.

Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County said border fencing simply doesn’t work. Dever is co-chair of bordersheriffs.com. Bordersherrifs.com is helping to fight the legal battles against Arizona immigration legislation.

“I think it’s well intentioned, but you can build all the fence you want to build and unless it’s the right kind of fence and unless you have the manpower to watch it, it’s of very little or no value,” Dever told msnbc.com. “The federal government has built a lot of fence and most of it has been inadequate in terms of actually stopping people from crossing.”

Link

Glad you brought that up. To date the US has spent 1.7 trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan. You could buy back a butt load of guns for that amount.

That money is gone. We are certainly not going to spend another 1.7 trillion in those countries.

We have spent over 1 trillion on the "War on Drugs" with no end in sight. Adding a "War on Guns" to our list of stupid expensive wars is a terrible idea.

You don't think the gun dealers would get to that assumption first? Sell their guns in bulk and make a wad and then the criminals wouldn't be able to buy guns to sell to the govt ...... HANG ON ! they wouldn't be able to get guns at all.... hey how about that?

The same logic applies to the dealers as to the individual buyers. Sure, they would sell to the government. Then the unscrupulous ones would restock illegally and make a profit.

Your idea only works in an environment where illegal weapons are unavailable.

If you shoot somebody who doesn't "have the upper hand" you have committed murder, self defence only comes in if you are in fear of your life Rambo.

Not where I live. Laws vary from state to state, but in general, when in our homes, if someone breaks in we are not required to wait until the intruder has a weapon trained on us. If we see they are armed we can kill them right then and there, even if they are not yet aware of our presence. In some states you are only required to have reasonable cause to believe the intruder intends to commit a felony. For example, North Carolina:

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

( A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

[womble]

Not where I live. Laws vary from state to state, but in general, when in our homes, if someone breaks in we are not required to wait until the intruder has a weapon trained on us. If we see they are armed we can kill them right then and there, even if they are not yet aware of our presence. In some states you are only required to have reasonable cause to believe the intruder intends to commit a felony. For example, North Carolina:

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

( A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

The words 'reasonable' in the law are where jurisprecedence comes in. If a jury decides that it's reasonable to shoot a burglar in the back for stealing your telly (I think that's a felony), then in that jurisdiction, it's a reasonable and therfore lawful course of action until someone manages to persuade a higher court it's not... Just because you think it's reasonable doesn't necessarily mean that a court will. British law allows the use of reasonable force in self defense, up to and including lethal force, but does require some proportionality, so cases where lethal force is considered reasonable are quite rare. I gather American attitudes differ, and in practice, the precedent means intruders can expect a pretty hot reception.

All the above is meant to have no comment on rights or wrongs of the sitautions.

[Charlie Marlow]

. I gather American attitudes differ, and in practice, the precedent means intruders can expect a pretty hot reception.

Depends on the state, but as a generalization, pretty much. Often referred to as the Castle Doctrine.

[mike_the_wino]

Very much so. As Charlie Marlow has noted, we view people who would break into a house as a particularly bad sort. The type of person who would break your car window and steal your radio is a much different sort of dirtbag than the one who would break into your house. As such, they are treated differently in court system as well.

[Magpie_Oz]

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. We are talking about how easy or difficult it is to smuggle the items, not how much money they can be resold for.

It makes every sense a large amount of Cocaine can be smuggled easily, 1 kg will go a very long way and will net a huge return. Guns are much more bulky and are harder to smuggle in high cash return quantities.

Correct. And going the other direction would be no more difficult.

Perhaps but the point is they don't go the other way so Mexico is unlikely to become an exporter of guns.

The ban would only be effective if we could stop guns coming into the country. I have no idea what that would cost, or even if any amount of money would be sufficient given the area and volume of traffic, but what we are spending now is obviously not working and increasing funding is very difficult, both financially and politically.

There would be no additional cost simply because there are already mechanisms in place to stop illegal imports so it is just something else to look out for.

Arizona lawmakers are hoping to raise around $50 million for border fencing with a new online public fundraising plan that launches Wednesday – despite skepticism from key stakeholders........

That is about stopping the walk in illegal immigrants, large quantities of weapons, if they were to be smuggled in would need trucks and are much easier to police.

That money is gone. We are certainly not going to spend another 1.7 trillion in those countries.

I not suggesting that you would spend more on these countries rather that the money could be found for operations in countries foreign to your own so why not find some money to help your own people?

We have spent over 1 trillion on the "War on Drugs" with no end in sight. Adding a "War on Guns" to our list of stupid expensive wars is a terrible idea.

Just because one thing has not worked doesn't mean another won't either. The War on Drugs was a failure in its execution not as a concept. A different approach may yield better results.

Your idea only works in an environment where illegal weapons are unavailable.

That is the whole idea, it IS doable. Our borders are a lot longer and unguarded and vulnerable to smugglers but we seem to manage to keep illegal arms out.

Not where I live. Laws vary from state to state, but in general, when in our homes, if someone breaks in we are not required to wait until the intruder has a weapon trained on us. If we see they are armed we can kill them right then and there, even if they are not yet aware of our presence. In some states you are only required to have reasonable cause to believe the intruder intends to commit a felony. For example, North Carolina:

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

( A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

That is one of the major problems of laws like that is the disparity between statute punishment and common law punishment.

The punishment you will receive in court for breaking and entering is probably a custodial sentence in some cases up to life imprisonment but more likely 5 to 10 years.

However the North Carolina example you quote places a common law penalty of death (not really but I am trying to avoid saying vigilante.) It grants the power of judge jury and executioner to the home owner which places them outside the rule of law, hardly a good situation

[Magpie_Oz]

First English colony in the US was Jamestown, founded in 1607. It was a commercial venture.

First Representative local body was the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1619.

The capital of the colony moves, but the Virginia colonial government is a representative one made up of free Englishmen, not convicts.

Records are sketchy but the colonies of the Americas were used for Penal Transportation right from the very beginning. Australia was never ruled by a government made up of convicts but true enough we were founded on the basis of being a penal colony first and foremost

[Vanir Ausf B]

It makes every sense a large amount of Cocaine can be smuggled easily, 1 kg will go a very long way and will net a huge return. Guns are much more bulky and are harder to smuggle in high cash return quantities.

A typical handgun weighs less than 1kg and has smaller dimensions than a kilo of cocaine. Your continued insistence on using the completely irrelevant factor of dollar value is puzzling.

Perhaps but the point is they don't go the other way so Mexico is unlikely to become an exporter of guns.

You can't be serious. Drugs and guns flow in the direction of supply to demand. If the supply/demand equation changed the direction of flow can change just as easily. If you do not believe this, explain how this could not happen.

There would be no additional cost simply because there are already mechanisms in place to stop illegal imports so it is just something else to look out for.

This is obviously not true.

That is about stopping the walk in illegal immigrants, large quantities of weapons, if they were to be smuggled in would need trucks and are much easier to police.

You are greatly underestimating the difficulties involved. Perhaps you are unaware that the vast majority of drugs currently smuggled into the US arrive in vehicles, airplanes and boats.

...

From January through November 2009, U.S. seizures of illegal drugs in transit exceeded 1,626 metric tons, indicating that DTOs succeed in moving several thousand tons of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA into the United States annually. There are unique smuggling and transportation methods associated with each drug type, but overall, drug seizure data and law enforcement reporting indicate that overland smuggling and subsequent transportation by vehicle exceed all other methods combined.

Common Overland Smuggling Methods

Mexican DTOs dominate the transportation of illicit drugs across the Southwest Border. They typically use commercial trucks and private and rental vehicles to smuggle cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin through the 25 land POEs as well as through vast areas of desert and mountainous terrain between POEs. Asian traffickers, OMGs, and Indo-Canadian drug traffickers transport significant quantities of high-potency marijuana and MDMA into the United States across the U.S.-Canada border. They use commercial trucks and private and rental vehicles to transport these drugs through more than 100 land POEs. They also use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), aircraft, maritime vessels, and couriers on foot to smuggle drugs through vast areas between POEs.

Link

I not suggesting that you would spend more on these countries rather that the money could be found for operations in countries foreign to your own so why not find some money to help your own people?

You are under the impression the US government does not already spend money on it's own people? You might want to do some research on that. While you're at it, you might want to look into the size of our budget deficit and outstanding debt. You seem to have a very naive view of our financial situation.

Just because one thing has not worked doesn't mean another won't either. The War on Drugs was a failure in its execution not as a concept. A different approach may yield better results.

Please explain what that different approach should be and why it will succeed.

That is the whole idea, it IS doable.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing this issue in theoretical terms that ignore most of the practical considerations. You are blithely dismissing issues that we have been struggling with for years, seemingly under the belief that any problem can be solved if enough money is thrown at it, and that we have vast sums of money that can be painlessly relocated from Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what we are spending all our money on now, so that we can spend it on the one thing that would do more good for the US than any other initiative: a War on Guns!

The reality is that government budgets at both the state and federal level are being slashed across the board. Programs are being cancelled or cut back everywhere.

That is one of the major problems of your legal system and it mainly comes down to the disparity between statute punishment and common law punishment.

The punishment you will receive in court for breaking and entering is probably a custodial sentence in some cases up to life imprisonment but more likely 5 to 10 years.

However the North Carolina example you quote places a common law penalty of death. It grants the power of judge jury and executioner to the home owner which places them outside the rule of law, hardly a good situation

In countries without a death penalty even murder is only punishable by a prison sentence, as is rape. You prefer laws more merciful to the criminal and apparently would prefer the State to have a complete monopoly on the legal application of violence. Our laws give the individual more power to defend himself, his family and property. You are entitle to your opinion, but I do not see a problem at all.

[Magpie_Oz]

A typical handgun weighs less than 1kg and has smaller dimensions than a kilo of cocaine. Your continued insistence on using the completely irrelevant factor of dollar value is puzzling.

Ok to put it in simpler terms for you, a kilo of coke is 1000 "hits" so to compare drugs and guns you need to compare 1kg of coke with 1000 individual guns. 1000 guns are a hell of a lot harder to smuggle than 1000 units of coke

You can't be serious. Drugs and guns flow in the direction of supply to demand. If the supply/demand equation changed the direction of flow can change just as easily. If you do not believe this, explain how this could not happen.

It could not happen because Mexico has much stricter gun laws than just about any body else and it's primary source of illegal supply is the US they don't have a domestic supply source and their import regs are far stricter. The example I mentioned before was for semi-auto weapons that are legal in the US being smuggled into Mexico where they are banned.

This is obviously not true.

How do you figure that? You currently have tight controls on what is imported into the USA all you have to do is put another item on the list. Are you suggesting that a vast expenditure would be needed for the customs officials to be able to recognise a gun?

You are greatly underestimating the difficulties involved. Perhaps you are unaware that the vast majority of drugs currently smuggled into the US arrive in vehicles, airplanes and boats.

As previously mentioned 1000 units of drugs can be hidden in a spare tyre of a car, 1000 guns even small ones are a much tougher concealment.

You are under the impression the US government does not already spend money on it's own people? You might want to do some research on that. While you're at it, you might want to look into the size of our budget deficit and outstanding debt. You seem to have a very naive view of our financial situation.

No what I am saying is that 1.7 trillion dollars has been spent on the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is finished and Afghanistan is in draw down so what that means is there is 1.7 trillion dollars back into the economy which you would only need a tenth of to pay $500 of every gun in circulation.

Please explain what that different approach should be and why it will succeed.

I am not saying I have a better approach I am saying that just because one approach has not worked does not mean that all attempts will fail. Which is what you said when you suggested that a War on Guns would fail just as the War on Drugs has.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing this issue in theoretical terms that ignore most of the practical considerations.

Not one of the arguments offered on this forum or any other where I have had this debate many, many times has ever offered a practical problem that is insurmountable.

You are blithely dismissing issues that we have been struggling with for years, seemingly under the belief that any problem can be solved if enough money is thrown at it, and that we have vast sums of money that can be painlessly relocated from Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what we are spending all our money on now, so that we can spend it on the one thing that would do more good for the US than any other initiative: a War on Guns!

I am not blithely dismissing anything.

The reality is that government budgets at both the state and federal level are being slashed across the board. Programs are being cancelled or cut back everywhere.

Yes I understand that the US economy has some major difficulties at present.

Countries that actively use the death penalty: People's Republic of China,Iran,North Korea,Yemen,United States,Saudi Arabia,Libya,Syria, Bangladesh, Somalia,Sudan,Palestinian Authority,Egypt,Equatorial Guinea ,Taiwan,Belarus,Iraq,Malaysia,Bahrain,Botswana,Singapore,Vietnam

In some esteemed company there.

....... but I do not see a problem at all.

No and I guess that is the nub of the issue.

[womble]

In countries without a death penalty even murder is only punishable by a prison sentence, as is rape. You prefer laws more merciful to the criminal and apparently would prefer the State to have a complete monopoly on the legal application of violence. Our laws give the individual more power to defend himself, his family and property. You are entitle to your opinion, but I do not see a problem at all.

Magpie Oz isn't comparing your punishments to other jurisdictions, but the punishment permissible to the "ordinary Joe" (summary execution) to administer to a perp caught red-handed to that available to the state (jail time) for the same crime (burglary). I have to admit that this does seem a bit unbalanced. If burglary is considered such a terrible crime that you're entitled to splatter an intruder all over your soft furnishings if you surprise them with a shotgun, surely that should be reflected in the punishment handed out to those who are convicted having been apprehended after the fact?

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes that is precisely what I meant, wish I had your turn of phrase Mr Womble.

Excepting of course that I believe that the Average Joe's powers should match to the duly appointed judiciary's and we can leave the soft furnishings as they are.

[ironbar]

If burglary is considered such a terrible crime that you're entitled to splatter an intruder all over your soft furnishings if you surprise them with a shotgun, surely that should be reflected in the punishment handed out to those who are convicted having been apprehended after the fact?

Ah but there's the rub, at 2am how do I indentify the motivations of the fellow who just kicked in my back door?

Is he the run of the mill flat screen TV thief, or a Manson family wannabe?

Relying on the professionalism of sociopaths who are committing burglary, armed robbery or carjacking is a dicey proposition at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

[womble]

Ah but there's the rub, at 2am how do I indentify the motivations of the fellow who just kicked in my back door?

Is he the run of the mill flat screen TV thief, or a Manson family wannabe?

Well, I suppose the rub of the rub is that where domestic intruders are assumed to be after your gizzards not your gold, you the motiviations of the interloper are irrelevant. While I'm not for one moment suggesting that stringent RoE apply, wounds in the back of the invader might tend to imply that they weren't a clear and present danger to life and limb in most situations, and there's a disjoint there between what the individual is permitted and what the state and its servants are. AIUI, officers of the law aren't generally, in the US (I've heard it varies round the world: at one point Hong Kong police were allowed to shoot you if you failed to stop when called upon to do so), permitted to fire upon a suspect unless they have reason to believe life may be endangered.

There's a difference between the commission of burglary and violent crimes like carjacking and armed robbery. The law recognises this and I think it's probably right that there should be at least some requirement of the individual to recognise it too, in their own self-defense. Someone comes at me with a melee weapon, all the 'soft' will go out of my Aikido; they swing a fist or pick a pocket and it'll only hurt, not break. At least that will be my intention. They point a gun at me, I'll call 'em "Sir" . I think the pervading "anything goes" attitude has some good points, in that people won't be frightened of defending themselves, as they'll probably never face any charges at all, which contrasts favourably to the flip side of intruders suing homeowners for injuries from falls etc , and there is a kernel of truth to the tabloid wailing over here that a fellow can't defend what's theirs for fear of being hauled up in front of the Beak on GBH charges. For me, the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, even if it's a ball-ache for the courts to sort out. That's what they're there for.

Edit: One other thing occurs to me: there have been many similar terrible torture-murder crimes where the victim has been taken off the street. Using that carjacking as a justification for unlimited self defense inside your property could equally be extended to those heinous crimes as justification for 'Free fire' self-defense pretty much anywhere. Most carjackings don't end so horribly, after all. I don't want to have to become a Master of Llap Goch just to walk down the street