• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Right Of Self Defense In England

England has a right to self defence. Any force used must be necessary and reasonable, and related to a crime, not a civil matter. Stabbing trespassers is a no-no.

There is this idiotic idea that a criminal is a valuable member of society and must be preserved at any cost in citizens lives.

Can you disprove this statement?
 
There is this idiotic idea that a criminal is a valuable member of society and must be preserved at any cost in citizens lives.

Can you disprove this statement?

You mean the English law? That idiotic idea that you can only use proportional and reasonable violence during a crime?

Because this is the UK law, as it is in the Dutch law, you cannot kill a trespasser just for trespassing, you cannot kill a fleeing burglar, etc. etc. etc.

And that is not an idiotic idea, that is civilized behavior in response to a crime. There is no legal basis for being judge jury and executioner.
 
I'm about to see some abject idiocy demonstrated right here. Are you always so puffed up about your assumed superiority?



I know what you wrote my comment was directly to that. Try to read and comprehend.



Exactly the idiocy I demonstrated. What you have not shown is that removal of guns will cause a decrease of deaths or injury. It is idiotic to claim removing matches will cause less match deaths. Try to learn something about statistics and what they actually mean.



So you say but have again failed to show causality. Do you have a comprehension problem? Let me spell it out. You cannot assume causality because you believe it to be true. There are more sensible people who do not risk their lives on others delusional or inculcated beliefs. Try to be one of those.



You are babbling. Incomprehensibly. Emotional argument with no relevant evidence presented. This is a debate not a sowing circle.

Moderator's Warning:
Please cease making your arguments personal attacks.
 
You mean the English law? That idiotic idea that you can only use proportional and reasonable violence during a crime?

Are you suggesting a person gets out of their wheelchair and grapples with the criminal? That this must follow some set of rules so as not to injure the criminal.

Because this is the UK law, as it is in the Dutch law, you cannot kill a trespasser just for trespassing, you cannot kill a fleeing burglar, etc. etc. etc.

Is monkey see monkey do any way to make laws?

And that is not an idiotic idea, that is civilized behavior in response to a crime. There is no legal basis for being judge jury and executioner.

It is an idiotic idea and encourages crime rather than deters crime. It is why UK has a huge home invasion problem and criminals could not care if anyone is at home. Such conditions render the victim defenceless and serve no "civilised" purpose.

Your comparison is false and an emotional argument. The only action taking place is defence of ones property, self and life. Only man has this idiotic idea an attacker or intruder has some value that must be respected. That his goods, valuables, health and life must be sacrificed so as to not injure a criminal attack. Some are so insane as to think this is civilised thus crime is a civilised activity by being protected.

Threatening people with more violence than they are willing to suffer is the way to stop them. Inviting the perp to a boxing match or scuffle is not going to do that. Common sense is all that is needed but seems to be in short supply for some nations.
 
Are you suggesting a person gets out of their wheelchair and grapples with the criminal? That this must follow some set of rules so as not to injure the criminal.

And this is meant to be a response to my comment of:

You mean the English law? That idiotic idea that you can only use proportional and reasonable violence during a crime?

Because zero words of your comment has anything to do with a response to my comment.

Is monkey see monkey do any way to make laws?

No, this is what happens when sane people write effective and civilized laws meant to protect everybody's life.

It is an idiotic idea and encourages crime rather than deters crime. It is why UK has a huge home invasion problem and criminals could not care if anyone is at home. Such conditions render the victim defenceless and serve no "civilised" purpose.

Your comparison is false and an emotional argument. The only action taking place is defence of ones property, self and life. Only man has this idiotic idea an attacker or intruder has some value that must be respected. That his goods, valuables, health and life must be sacrificed so as to not injure a criminal attack. Some are so insane as to think this is civilised thus crime is a civilised activity by being protected.

Threatening people with more violence than they are willing to suffer is the way to stop them. Inviting the perp to a boxing match or scuffle is not going to do that. Common sense is all that is needed but seems to be in short supply for some nations.

Except my ideas are not "emotional, false" or any other bull crap way you want to put it, my ideas are the law and for a good reason, to make sure there are no excesses when it comes to idiots who think you can shoot someone for stealing a lawn ornament or shooting their own kid when they hear a bump in the night and they come out all Rambo on their kid who stumbled in the living room while coming back in from being out when they should not be.

You are not defenseless if you are not allowed to use unfettered violence against crimes that are not a threat to your life or health. Those are the reasons one can use violence, if someone steels your television is not a life or death situation and thus deadly force should never be used. That may sound to civilized to your ears but not to mine (or those of countless "civilized" people).
 
And this is meant to be a response to my comment of:

You mean the English law? That idiotic idea that you can only use proportional and reasonable violence during a crime?

Because zero words of your comment has anything to do with a response to my comment.

You are not defenseless if you are not allowed to use unfettered violence against crimes that are not a threat to your life or health. Those are the reasons one can use violence, if someone steels your television is not a life or death situation and thus deadly force should never be used. That may sound to civilized to your ears but not to mine (or those of countless "civilized" people).

Emotional argument.

You must be the only person who fails to see my point that crippling the victim with idiotic laws only aids the criminal. A person who has put themselves outside the law by breaking it. What is really interesting is why these laws and supporters are trying to aid criminals and further crime.

No, this is what happens when sane people write effective and civilized laws meant to protect everybody's life.

A person who attacks you or attempts to deprive you has given up that right. That is the law of nature and common sense. You cannot aid a victim by weakening defence.

Except my ideas are not "emotional, false" or any other bull crap way you want to put it, my ideas are the law and for a good reason, to make sure there are no excesses when it comes to idiots who think you can shoot someone for stealing a lawn ornament or shooting their own kid when they hear a bump in the night and they come out all Rambo on their kid who stumbled in the living room while coming back in from being out when they should not be.

Emotional argument ignored. No facts presented Your arguments are emotional, fact.

You are not defenseless if you are not allowed to use unfettered violence against crimes that are not a threat to your life or health. Those are the reasons one can use violence, if someone steels your television is not a life or death situation and thus deadly force should never be used. That may sound to civilized to your ears but not to mine (or those of countless "civilized" people).

Emotional argument. It would seem the source of your claims is a belief based on emotional arguments and not facts.

Only deluded people and idiots think a victim has time to calculate the odds and find a suitable means of defence. If that is what you mean by civilised no thanks. I want the maximum I can use as my life is more valuable to me. Nor do I read minds and have no idea of what a criminal intends to do when confronted. I want to be able to defend myself no matter what. Do you think stop or I'll punch you has any value? Do you think an attacker actually needs a weapon to kill you? I wish civilised people would get out more. They might discover the real world not the pretend world where police and banks will not shoot you escaping with their money.

Why can you only use emotional arguments? When I use them back to you you pretend not to understand.

Just how many crappy bad stupid laws do you think there are, none?
 
Last edited:
You mean the English law? That idiotic idea that you can only use proportional and reasonable violence during a crime?

Because this is the UK law, as it is in the Dutch law, you cannot kill a trespasser just for trespassing, you cannot kill a fleeing burglar, etc. etc. etc.

And that is not an idiotic idea, that is civilized behavior in response to a crime. There is no legal basis for being judge jury and executioner.

How do you know that someone intruding in your domicile is there just to steal your TV and not there with the intent to cause you harm, or won't turn from just a burglar into a life threatening attacker once discovered? Do you feel that you owe the intruder the benefit of the doubt and won't take defensive action until you or a family member is actually attacked?
 
How do you know that someone intruding in your domicile is there just to steal your TV and not there with the intent to cause you harm, or won't turn from just a burglar into a life threatening attacker once discovered? Do you feel that you owe the intruder the benefit of the doubt and won't take defensive action until you or a family member is actually attacked?

Well, if you see him walking away with a TV than that would be a pretty good indication that he is there for your television.

And I do not disapprove of proportional violence, hitting him over the head with a cricket bat (for in the UK) or a baseball bat (in the Netherlands) once to incapacitate or scare away, then I am fine with that. Hit him over the head 10 times until he is dead, well then a prosecution for second degree murder would be appropriate because after 3 baseball bat strikes to the head he will be out for the count.

Because we are talking about how it is in the UK or in the Netherlands, not in the US where weapons fire might be appropriate because the odds of him having a weapons is much higher than it will be in the Netherlands or the UK.

And in case that he has not see you, call out, hey, who is that (and switch on the lights) say you have called the police and they will be here any second (again in the Netherlands or UK or a country with little chance of having a gun) and then make sure you are able to defend yourself or (which is more likely) see him runaway like the scared coward that he is.

Because in the UK and the Netherlands the jail time you get for burglary or burglary with murder is so large, only idiot burglars would kill someone.

And for that reason, very few burglars are ever armed in the Netherlands, because they know that if they run if they are discovered, the only punishment they will get is the one for the burglary, well sit in jail for a year and you are out. Use a weapon and you could be looking at 30 years. You see, risk and reward for weapons is almost zero because it will lead to real risks for everyone involved.

And that is also why extremely disproportionate violence for minor crimes is illegal, if every burglar would risk being beaten to death or shot to death than they too will arm themselves as a means of self protection. If the burglar does not feel that threat of risk of death than he too will not even carry a weapon. And again, I know it is different in the US but this thread is about the UK (and I added the Netherlands) so my views are much more in line with how crime is viewed here.
 
Well, if you see him walking away with a TV than that would be a pretty good indication that he is there for your television.

What about before that? Do you wait to see if he attacks you or just saunters over to the TV?

And I do not disapprove of proportional violence, hitting him over the head with a cricket bat (for in the UK) or a baseball bat (in the Netherlands) once to incapacitate or scare away, then I am fine with that. Hit him over the head 10 times until he is dead, well then a prosecution for second degree murder would be appropriate because after 3 baseball bat strikes to the head he will be out for the count.

Because we are talking about how it is in the UK or in the Netherlands, not in the US where weapons fire might be appropriate because the odds of him having a weapons is much higher than it will be in the Netherlands or the UK.

And in case that he has not see you, call out, hey, who is that (and switch on the lights) say you have called the police and they will be here any second (again in the Netherlands or UK or a country with little chance of having a gun) and then make sure you are able to defend yourself or (which is more likely) see him runaway like the scared coward that he is.

Because in the UK and the Netherlands the jail time you get for burglary or burglary with murder is so large, only idiot burglars would kill someone.

You don't know when they enter your house what the purpose of their intrusion is, and I for one don't feel that I owe anyone who breaks into my house where my family is any benefit of doubt. I won't wait to see why they are here. Luckily, our laws support that.

And for that reason, very few burglars are ever armed in the Netherlands, because they know that if they run if they are discovered, the only punishment they will get is the one for the burglary, well sit in jail for a year and you are out. Use a weapon and you could be looking at 30 years. You see, risk and reward for weapons is almost zero because it will lead to real risks for everyone involved.

The problem with that in the US is if the intruder is stupid enough to bring or find a weapon and decides to use it, or the intruder has arrived with a more nefarious purpose, them being on trial for murder is a trial you the victim won't be around to see.

And that is also why extremely disproportionate violence for minor crimes is illegal, if every burglar would risk being beaten to death or shot to death than they too will arm themselves as a means of self protection. If the burglar does not feel that threat of risk of death than he too will not even carry a weapon. And again, I know it is different in the US but this thread is about the UK (and I added the Netherlands) so my views are much more in line with how crime is viewed here.

A good proportion of our home invasions are criminal on criminal, where drugs are involved, and sometime the intruders have the wrong address. We have many more people than the Netherlands, and so we have more of the truly sick people who do enter homes to do more than just take property.
 
Emotional argument.

You must be the only person who fails to see my point that crippling the victim with idiotic laws only aids the criminal. A person who has put themselves outside the law by breaking it. What is really interesting is why these laws and supporters are trying to aid criminals and further crime.

And you must be the only person who thinks they know everything and that everybody in the whole world thinks exactly like you do. Just because you feel that not being able to use excessive force is "crippling" a victim. And talking about the emotional argument, you were the one who brought out a handicapped person and him having to "grapple with the criminal".

And the argument "these laws and supporters are trying to aid criminals and further crime" is about as an emotional bull crap argument as is possible to think up. Just because laws in other countries frown upon shooting a petty burglar to death, does not mean that are "aiding criminals and further crime". If you cannot think up real arguments, don't come up with that baseless nonsense please.

A person who attacks you or attempts to deprive you has given up that right. That is the law of nature and common sense. You cannot aid a victim by weakening defence.

Except defending yourself with appropriate violence or going out and stabbing someone who is taking off with your television (in his hands) are two completely different things. Nobody is weakening a victim because he can use appropriate force and judges usually do not explain these laws narrowly and use a wide margin when judging cases.

Emotional argument ignored. No facts presented Your arguments are emotional, fact.

An example is not "an emotional argument", what nonsense to even suggest this. And my argument is that our laws are perfectly fine and do not need to be "improved" by using the violent argument of unfettered aggression that you propose or are a proponent of.

Emotional argument. It would seem the source of your claims is a belief based on emotional arguments and not facts.

Only deluded people and idiots think a victim has time to calculate the odds and find a suitable means of defence. If that is what you mean by civilised no thanks. I want the maximum I can use as my life is more valuable to me. Nor do I read minds and have no idea of what a criminal intends to do when confronted. I want to be able to defend myself no matter what. Do you think stop or I'll punch you has any value? Do you think an attacker actually needs a weapon to kill you? I wish civilised people would get out more. They might discover the real world not the pretend world where police and banks will not shoot you escaping with their money.

Why can you only use emotional arguments? When I use them back to you you pretend not to understand.

Just how many crappy bad stupid laws do you think there are, none?

And only someone who has no rationality whatsoever thinks that proportional violence to defend yourself is "limiting the victim". And what you want is the ultimate of emotionally based arguments. What you think and feel is unimportant when it comes to how we construct our laws in Europe. And the same goes for you "I want" argument, also totally baseless because we cannot all do what we want in a country (because that would be anarchy). People have to follow the law, if you don't that is your choice but then you have to pay the price for that action (jail time).

And just because you think something is an emotional argument (while constantly using them yourself) does not make something an emotional argument.

And the law is not stupid just because you think it is. You seem to think you are the one who gets to value laws and guess what, you are not. That right is purely reserved for the people who live in that country.
 
What about before that? Do you wait to see if he attacks you or just saunters over to the TV?



You don't know when they enter your house what the purpose of their intrusion is, and I for one don't feel that I owe anyone who breaks into my house where my family is any benefit of doubt. I won't wait to see why they are here. Luckily, our laws support that.



The problem with that in the US is if the intruder is stupid enough to bring or find a weapon and decides to use it, or the intruder has arrived with a more nefarious purpose, them being on trial for murder is a trial you the victim won't be around to see.



A good proportion of our home invasions are criminal on criminal, where drugs are involved, and sometime the intruders have the wrong address. We have many more people than the Netherlands, and so we have more of the truly sick people who do enter homes to do more than just take property.

And you seem to miss the whole point. We are NOT talking about the United States but we are talking about crime in the Netherlands and the UK.

You keep coming up with arguments which might be valid for the US (which I already stated) but are not appropriate for other countries where we do not have a crack cocaine or opiate crisis like in the US. We do not have a meth explosion like in the US and our criminals usually are not armed with guns or stuff like that.
 
=Peter King;1067533883]You mean the English law? That idiotic idea that you can only use proportional and reasonable violence during a crime?
I won't be making any trips there. With the terrorism that seems to be going on in that part of the world good luck.
Because this is the UK law, as it is in the Dutch law, you cannot kill a trespasser just for trespassing, you cannot kill a fleeing burglar, etc. etc. etc.
Not sure what all the etc. etc. involves but if it's rape your wrong.Murder your wrong.Counterpoint: A rape survivor argues why we need guns on campus | MSNBC
And that is not an idiotic idea, that is civilized behavior in response to a crime. There is no legal basis for being judge jury and executioner.
Then you have no crime since you are all civilized? And heaven forbid if a crime did happen rape,murder or bodily injury it's best to just let the little perp go is what you are saying.How very civilized. Judge jury and executioner? see above link.
 
And you seem to miss the whole point. We are NOT talking about the United States but we are talking about crime in the Netherlands and the UK.

You keep coming up with arguments which might be valid for the US (which I already stated) but are not appropriate for other countries where we do not have a crack cocaine or opiate crisis like in the US. We do not have a meth explosion like in the US and our criminals usually are not armed with guns or stuff like that.

I think the point you might be trying to get at here is how would easy access to guns make things safer anywhere in Europe viz drugs :thumbs:
 
I won't be making any trips there. With the terrorism that seems to be going on in that part of the world good luck.

Not sure what all the etc. etc. involves but if it's rape your wrong.Murder your wrong.Counterpoint: A rape survivor argues why we need guns on campus | MSNBC

Then you have no crime since you are all civilized? And heaven forbid if a crime did happen rape,murder or bodily injury it's best to just let the little perp go is what you are saying.How very civilized. Judge jury and executioner? see above link.

Well, the risk of terrorism is a lot lower than gun violence in the US will ever be (and that is a fact). Even during the troubles the England did not have such violence as compared to the huge number of people dying in the US through murder.

In the Americas, according to UNODC the murders in that region of the world in the most recent year they counted was 157,000, the number of murders in Africa was 135,000, the number of murders in Asia was 122,000.

The safest regions by far were Oceania with 1,100 murders and Europe with 22,000 murders.

In North America there were 15,696 murders (the crime is much worse in the Southern American hemisphere and Mexico).

The UK has 594 murders, Sweden 112, Finland 88, Denmark 56, Ireland 30, Norway 29, Iceland 3, Italy 469, Spain 303, Portugal 100, Greece 93, France 1,107, Germany 682, Belgium 220, Netherlands 104, Switzerland 57, Austria 44.

Even with the terrorism, "that part of the world" is still incredibly safe.

And while the rape victim might have been better off if she had been able to ward the rapist off, if more potential victims are armed, it does not make the rape rate go down. It just changes the way the rapist operates and the level of violence that he is willing to use to get his way with that woman. And the level of violence he would be willing to use after the fact.

And of course we have crime, we however also have burglars who try to commit crimes without guns or other weapons and who run rather than fight the homeowner (due to it making that person get a lot higher sentence) and there is no reason for someone who is threatened and in risk of injury of not using the appropriate amount of violence to protect him or herself. But the civilized part is not making any level of violence towards an intruder/burglar/robber automatically legal. That should be up to a judge to make sure people do not act like judge, jury and executioner but that they use that level of violence which will protect them absolutely but will not kill the burglar in the process.
 
Well, the risk of terrorism is a lot lower than gun violence in the US will ever be (and that is a fact). Even during the troubles the England did not have such violence as compared to the huge number of people dying in the US through murder.

Oh! wow BS at its best, every other crime is higher by far. No thanks. Violence capital of Europe from once safe England due entirely from idiots voting for gun control. I wonder if any of them have ever examined the blood on their hands.

In the Americas, according to UNODC the murders in that region of the world in the most recent year they counted was 157,000, the number of murders in Africa was 135,000, the number of murders in Asia was 122,000.

In North America there were 15,696 murders (the crime is much worse in the Southern American hemisphere and Mexico).

The UK has 594 murders, Sweden 112, Finland 88, Denmark 56, Ireland 30, Norway 29, Iceland 3, Italy 469, Spain 303, Portugal 100, Greece 93, France 1,107, Germany 682, Belgium 220, Netherlands 104, Switzerland 57, Austria 44.

Even with the terrorism, "that part of the world" is still incredibly safe.

The safest regions by far were Oceania with 1,100 murders and Europe with 22,000 murders.

And while the rape victim might have been better off if she had been able to ward the rapist off, if more potential victims are armed, it does not make the rape rate go down. It just changes the way the rapist operates and the level of violence that he is willing to use to get his way with that woman. And the level of violence he would be willing to use after the fact.


Pointless, useless propaganda statements that cannot expect to be taken seriously. Causality is not shown or validated.

The scientific world requires proof of causality when making such outlandish statements.


So what?

And of course we have crime, we however also have burglars who try to commit crimes without guns or other weapons and who run rather than fight the homeowner (due to it making that person get a lot higher sentence) and there is no reason for someone who is threatened and in risk of injury of not using the appropriate amount of violence to protect him or herself. But the civilized part is not making any level of violence towards an intruder/burglar/robber automatically legal. That should be up to a judge to make sure people do not act like judge, jury and executioner but that they use that level of violence which will protect them absolutely but will not kill the burglar in the process.

Four times more burglaries are home invasions and the occupants terrorised and traumatised. Rape is as simple as over powering and criminals do not run away because your overall crime rate is higher that the USA. UK has police no go areas. It is so bad the police and government have to hide the true figures from the rest of the world. Nobody really knows how bad it actually is except government and the Home Office. Obviously UK citizens want government to lie to them so they can live in an illusion of safety.

Any nation that thinks a criminals life is equal or superior to their own is well on its way to insanity. It would seem criminal rights are more important than victims rights.
 
And you must be the only person who thinks they know everything and that everybody in the whole world thinks exactly like you do. Just because you feel that not being able to use excessive force is "crippling" a victim. And talking about the emotional argument, you were the one who brought out a handicapped person and him having to "grapple with the criminal".

And the argument "these laws and supporters are trying to aid criminals and further crime" is about as an emotional bull crap argument as is possible to think up. Just because laws in other countries frown upon shooting a petty burglar to death, does not mean that are "aiding criminals and further crime". If you cannot think up real arguments, don't come up with that baseless nonsense please.



Except defending yourself with appropriate violence or going out and stabbing someone who is I accept your admission you have no better answer. taking off with your television (in his hands) are two completely different things. Nobody is weakening a victim because he can use appropriate force and judges usually do not explain these laws narrowly and use a wide margin when judging cases.



An example is not "an emotional argument", what nonsense to even suggest this. And my argument is that our laws are perfectly fine and do not need to be "improved" by using the violent argument of unfettered aggression that you propose or are a proponent of.



And only someone who has no rationality whatsoever thinks that proportional violence to defend yourself is "limiting the victim". And what you want is the ultimate of emotionally based arguments. What you think and feel is unimportant when it comes to how we construct our laws in Europe. And the same goes for you "I want" argument, also totally baseless because we cannot all do what we want in a country (because that would be anarchy). People have to follow the law, if you don't that is your choice but then you have to pay the price for that action (jail time).

And just because you think something is an emotional argument (while constantly using them yourself) does not make something an emotional argument.

Nice projection. Now all you have to do is prove it to be correct which I bet you cannot.

And the law is not stupid just because you think it is. You seem to think you are the one who gets to value laws and guess what, you are not. That right is purely reserved for the people who live in that country.

Criminals give up the right to protection when they commit a crime against another. The right to self-defence is superior to any right the criminal has. One may only argue that force against a criminal must cease when the criminal attack stops. To sit in prior judgement of a victim forcing and hobbling them to temper any defence from criminal attack is the height of idiocy in crime promotion. England reaps that benefit it has given to criminals by having an overall crime rate higher than even the USA.

The laws are stupid for the reasons I gave. Your emotional personal diatribe proves nothing, is worth nothing and has nothing worthy of responding to. I accept your admission you have no better answer. All you had to do was show validity of your outlandish claims. You making the claim in no way justifies or validates it. You have yet to show CAUSALITY. I accept you cannot. Try to remember you have failed to do that.
 
Last edited:
How do you know that someone intruding in your domicile is there just to steal your TV and not there with the intent to cause you harm, or won't turn from just a burglar into a life threatening attacker once discovered? Do you feel that you owe the intruder the benefit of the doubt and won't take defensive action until you or a family member is actually attacked?

The people of barmy England are blessed with a special kind of stupid. A newspaper seller may not have more than two box cutters in case the go postal and hijack a bicycle or pop a kids balloon.

It's all these box cutters and pen knives that cause all the crime. A UK brain cannot resist the power these things have. Guns.... Oh! good grief that is to frightening to even discuss intelligently.
 
Oh! wow BS at its best, every other crime is higher by far. No thanks. Violence capital of Europe from once safe England due entirely from idiots voting for gun control. I wonder if any of them have ever examined the blood on their hands.






Pointless, useless propaganda statements that cannot expect to be taken seriously. Causality is not shown or validated.

The scientific world requires proof of causality when making such outlandish statements.


So what?



Four times more burglaries are home invasions and the occupants terrorised and traumatised. Rape is as simple as over powering and criminals do not run away because your overall crime rate is higher that the USA. UK has police no go areas. It is so bad the police and government have to hide the true figures from the rest of the world. Nobody really knows how bad it actually is except government and the Home Office. Obviously UK citizens want government to lie to them so they can live in an illusion of safety.

Any nation that thinks a criminals life is equal or superior to their own is well on its way to insanity. It would seem criminal rights are more important than victims rights.

Can you find the hypocrisy in your post? I bet you can't.
 
Nice projection. Now all you have to do is prove it to be correct which I bet you cannot.

Let us start:

a person gets out of their wheelchair and grapples with the criminal. That this must follow some set of rules so as not to injure the criminal.

Yeah, that is a really rational comment totally devoid of "emotionally charged imagery". :lamo

Also nobody ever said anything about not injuring the criminal, that is something you made up.

Threatening people with more violence than they are willing to suffer is the way to stop them.

Another emotional bogus argument, drug addicted burglars only care about getting the next shot, not about potential violence, but nice try.

Or any kind of knife including a small folding penknife which a woman used to prevent rape. She landed up in court.

emotional claptrap, a small folding penknife will almost certainly not stop a rape from taking place nor will a small penknife end a woman up in court in normal cases. And clearly meant to garner an emotional response. Also, knifes are more often used to commit crimes than they are used to prevent crimes.

There is this idiotic idea that a criminal is a valuable member of society and must be preserved at any cost in citizens lives.

Yeah, how is this not emotional and absolutely not factual? For one, a criminal can be a valuable member of society for those who love him (parents, children, wife) and may at one time (before his drug addiction) and also, nobody said anything about "preserving them at any cost".

A person who attacks you or attempts to deprive you has given up that right. That is the law of nature and common sense. You cannot aid a victim by weakening defence.

And this is a factual rational statement? Someone who deprives you has given up the right to not be killed? "The Law of nature and common sense"? That is not only emotional, because it clearly is not factual it also is highly personal and totally an opinion.

I may use descriptions to make a point (which you claim is just "emotional" but you do the same, in fact most everyone uses that practice/tool to make a point.


Criminals give up the right to protection when they commit a crime against another. The right to self-defence is superior to any right the criminal has. One may only argue that force against a criminal must cease when the criminal attack stops. To sit in prior judgement of a victim forcing and hobbling them to temper any defence from criminal attack is the height of idiocy in crime promotion. England reaps that benefit it has given to criminals by having an overall crime rate higher than even the USA.

The laws are stupid for the reasons I gave. Your emotional personal diatribe proves nothing, is worth nothing and has nothing worthy of responding to. I accept your admission you have no better answer. All you had to do was show validity of your outlandish claims. You making the claim in no way justifies or validates it. You have yet to show CAUSALITY. I accept you cannot. Try to remember you have failed to do that.

And it is your opinion that criminals have given up the right to protection, they clearly do not in the UK. Also nobody says you cannot defend yourself, nobody ever claimed that. But there is a difference between defending yourself and wanton vigilantism and overkill.

And crime is not being promoted by stating that people cannot act as judge jury and executioner. And that you think they are stupid is your problem, I think they are fine. And my answers have already been given.

And this is not a case of causality, this is a case of what people in the UK want as their laws.
 
And just to return to something, earlier you posted this:

Thoth said:
For instance how do guns cause accidents such that more means more accidents? Are you saying that if there are more vehicles there will be more vehicle accidents.

Which is a totally fake argument, are you really stating that if more people own guns there will not be more accidents with guns? You do know how statistics and facts work? If more people own a chainsaw, more people will get hurt with a chainsaw, that is a statistical fact because the risk of injury goes up the more people (often untrained) own a chainsaw. The same with cars, if more cars are on the road, the risk of injury increases as more people driving means more chances for an accident to happen and usually the more people who are on the road (and driving) the bigger the risk of injuries. That is how statistics and reality work.

Also, you wanted evidence of my claims:

We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups. For every age group, where there are more guns, there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

We analyzed data from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System that asked questions about guns and gun storage in the home, combined with information on deaths from the National Center for Health Statistics. Across states, both firearm prevalence AND questionable storage practices (i.e. storing firearms loaded and unlocked) were associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
 
And just to return to something, earlier you posted this:



Which is a totally fake argument, are you really stating that if more people own guns there will not be more accidents with guns? You do know how statistics and facts work? If more people own a chainsaw, more people will get hurt with a chainsaw, that is a statistical fact because the risk of injury goes up the more people (often untrained) own a chainsaw. The same with cars, if more cars are on the road, the risk of injury increases as more people driving means more chances for an accident to happen and usually the more people who are on the road (and driving) the bigger the risk of injuries. That is how statistics and reality work.

Also, you wanted evidence of my claims:





https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/



Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Interestingly, perhaps, sometimes the theory doesn't actually hold. In 1999, according time CDC WISQARS data, the death rate due to unintentional firearms deaths was .29 per 100,000 population. As of 2015, that rate had fallen to .15, a decline of almost 50%. For children 17 and under, that rate fell from .22 to .10. While the exact figures for the number of guns aren't available, it's generally accepted that the number of guns in the US has increased from 1999 to 2015.
 
Oh! wow BS at its best, every other crime is higher by far. No thanks. Violence capital of Europe from once safe England due entirely from idiots voting for gun control. I wonder if any of them have ever examined the blood on their hands.


Pointless, useless propaganda statements that cannot expect to be taken seriously. Causality is not shown or validated.

The scientific world requires proof of causality when making such outlandish statements.


So what?



Four times more burglaries are home invasions and the occupants terrorised and traumatised. Rape is as simple as over powering and criminals do not run away because your overall crime rate is higher that the USA. UK has police no go areas. It is so bad the police and government have to hide the true figures from the rest of the world. Nobody really knows how bad it actually is except government and the Home Office. Obviously UK citizens want government to lie to them so they can live in an illusion of safety.

Any nation that thinks a criminals life is equal or superior to their own is well on its way to insanity. It would seem criminal rights are more important than victims rights.

You make no valid point whatsoever.

I have not seen one iota of scientific evidence but more of bravado nonsense of "more violence helps" without even making that believable in any way shape or form. At least my views are within the realm of reason and reality whereas yours just are outlandish and not based on any facts.

Outlandish like "Obviously UK citizens want government to lie to them so they can live in an illusion of safety." which is baseless in so many ways. For one, UK citizens are safer than for example US citizens even though they have weapons and can use unlimited violence to "defend themselves".

You come up with a nonsense claim that there are no go areas in the UK, because, without a shred of evidence you claim that the UK government is just hiding those facts, even though real facts and police forces in the UK say that is nonsense.

And just because you have a suspicion about your government being dishonest does not mean people in the UK feel that way (nor is it factual that the UK government is like that or that even the US government is like that).

And nobody said that the life of a criminal is sacrosanct over ones own life, just that if there is no logical reason to kill or hurt a criminal, you have to reign in your anger and behave moderately reasonable.
 
Interestingly, perhaps, sometimes the theory doesn't actually hold. In 1999, according time CDC WISQARS data, the death rate due to unintentional firearms deaths was .29 per 100,000 population. As of 2015, that rate had fallen to .15, a decline of almost 50%. For children 17 and under, that rate fell from .22 to .10. While the exact figures for the number of guns aren't available, it's generally accepted that the number of guns in the US has increased from 1999 to 2015.

Sure, but the safety features and education also became better.

But the comparison is between countries/states with more gun laws and less guns compared to states/countries with more guns and less gun laws.

States with a higher number of guns have more accidental deaths, it is wonderful that this is going down and I think the good and responsible gun owners for that achievement but statistically you are more likely to have an accident with a gun if guns are available to you then you no guns are available to you.
 
Sure, but the safety features and education also became better.

But the comparison is between countries/states with more gun laws and less guns compared to states/countries with more guns and less gun laws.

Experiments with two variables rarely give valid results.

States with a higher number of guns have more accidental deaths, it is wonderful that this is going down and I think the good and responsible gun owners for that achievement but statistically you are more likely to have an accident with a gun if guns are available to you then you no guns are available to you.

True, but that can be said of anything that has been known to cause unintentional death.
 
"As mentioned previously, the English have a remarkably low murder rate..."

National homicide rates are not that useful.

Neither are state homicide rates.

City homicide rates are far more useful--but even those can obscure reality as "bad areas" pull the statistical data on the rates up in a city and "good areas" pull the statistical data on the rates down in a city. Perhaps most useful are any reliable data on neighborhoods one can get. And in that case, you will find neighborhoods in the United States (usually white) that are as safe as the best neighborhoods in Canada and Europe, and neighborhoods that are some of the most violent and dangerous on the face of the planet (usually Black-American).

This is no different for Chicago for example. You have whole neighborhoods in Chicago with glass doors in both the back and front of the house (no security doors and no wooden doors, just top to bottom glass doors), made up of well-to-do Chicagoans that have attractive, safe, urban neighborhoods as anything you would find in the best parts of London or Berlin. But you have other neighborhoods in Chicago that would compete with Colombia and Brazilian slums for daily violence and residents living with PTSD.

Some years ago... after Rio de Janerio "pacified" the notorious Rio favela of "The City of God," radically dropping that favela's homicide rate, I was curious to find out how the Black-American middle-class Sherman Park neighborhood in Milwaukee faired against it in homicides per 100,000 people. I don't recall today exactly but I had the figures back then and I think the City of God had/has a massive population of roughly 100,000 people. Milwaukee's Sherman Park neighborhood has a population of roughly 30,000 people.

(albeit, the Sherman Park neighborhood is less uniformed probably than the sprawling City of God, and most of Sherman Park's violence and homicides are concentrated in a certain area of that neighborhood which makes certain parts of that neighborhood kind of safe and other parts kind of dangerous.)

I had at the time the homicide for each neighborhood, as the middle-class Sherman Park neighborhood made up part of the "murder triangle" of the city for that year.

It turned out that the Milwaukee's Sherman Park neighborhood--after I did the algebra--had a higher per capita (per 100,000 people) homicide rate for that year than Rio's notorious City of God favela.

Perhaps no surprise as the young Mexican men from Mexico on the South Side of Chicago I used to work with would express to me how violent and crazy they thought the black North Side of Milwaukee was.

Black-Americans are one of the most violent ethnic groups on the face of planet earth as of today. Probably not the most violent but I have no doubt among the most violent. And homicide problems in the United States are mostly driven by Black-Americans.

I suspect... most the culture of violence among brown and black peoples throughout all the countries of the Americas are rooted in some extent to the violence of former colonialism, slavery, and the racial caste system. That said... whether in Brazil or the USA the gun homicide rates across numerous cities skyrocketed in the 1980s with the crack cocaine wars. When the gangs got involved in the crack cocaine business.

Yes... during the prohibition era there was an explosion of gun violence among white gangs. Like the Italian Chicago gangs under Al Capone who invented the drive-by shooting using the so-called "Chicago Typewriter."

But I'm recalling an long after that and before the crack wars when Black-American gangs primarily had fist fights and fights with baseball bats. Now, the problem is not so much gangs as those gangs made gun violence in black neighborhoods the cultural norm for most younger people to go to. Kind of like school shootings and work place shootings became "memes" among white Americans as ways to resolve problems.

While Republicans believe in economic "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," Democrats believe in socio-moral "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." Both are parties of idiots that doom their own nation. As they both give the middle finger to the "average" person and glorify the statistical outlier (lottery winner). Most people are not "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps" in the midst of hell and chaos. Idiots.
 
Back
Top Bottom