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

No worries, I appreciate that things happen. Like someone once said: "If someone asks you for directions all you have to do is point the way, you don't have to walk down the road with them". I'll leave it at that. Nonsense. Shooting at someone who's just invaded your home *isn't* cowboy vigilante justice, not by a long shot.
Cowboy vigilante justice implies being proactive, seeking out criminals. In a home-intrusion scenario this is simply false, you're just re-acting to a situation you didn't cause or provoke. Your first priority is your and your family's well-being, not passing any kind of judgement on the intruder.Even this woman you brought up wasn't applying cowboy vigilante justice, she was only over-reacting based on her own prejudice and paranoia, just as she would have even if she didn't have a gun. Let's get one thing clear: Psychopaths and guns are NOT mutually inclusive! You bringing up this incident is a desparate attempt to imply that they are. Exactly! What's this got to do with the fact that she was carrying a gun? err......let me see.....Nothing! So why did you bring it up? a) there's an extremely small risk for many things in life, like plane crashes and certain diseases, yet we still take precautions to mitigate this risk by belting up, immunisation, etc. This is a non-argument.
b) You *don't know* what the overall probability is! You only have the statistics of guns causing harm, NOT the statistics of guns saving from harm.
c) It's true that having A gun does not guarantee having superior fire-power nor ability, but having NO gun guarantees NO superior fire-power and NO ability.
Just like having AN insurance policy does not guarantee that some day you'll get some money out of it, but having NO insurance policy guarantees that you won't.In short, your argument for not having a gun is that you're happy taking your chances and hope you'll never need one. That's your prerogative I suppose, but you shouldn't try to impose that on others. As above. I'm 37 and I've encountered at least a dozen. So have many of my friends and family. Just because you've been fortunate enough not to doesn't mean that other people are or will be. You're attacking a strawman! If you read my statements above (you quoted them yourself) this will be obvious. This is a Rrhain moment:*blink!!*Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. They have waged wars against it and attacked it in many ways throughout the years. Yet, 60 years on, Israel's still standing. This IS the evidence. I'm not even going to go there.I can't believe we're even talking about this. My oh my, where do I begin? First off there was never any "armed deterrent" approach or "Cold War" situation in NI, it was all-out war. This fact alone makes yout argument irrelevant.
Second, the problem still persists: it's the British occupation of NI and its mixed populace. The IRA terrorism was just a symptom, not the underlying problem itself. Just because everyone decided to talk it over doesn't mean that the problem's been solved, nor that the symptoms won't re-appear.
There are three or four more major flaws with your argument but the above are enough to disprove it.

---

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

As a complete aside.....We are the same age. I know many people of our age (i.e. same school year) from Merthyr. The majority of whom went to Pen Y Dre school and who were presumably contemporaries, possibly even classmates, of yours. It seems highly likely that we will have a number of acquaintances and possibly even friends in common.A very small world indeed.......

Em... but wouldn't that simply increase the likelyhood of intruders taking up arms to counter the threat against them?TIP:Have you ever taken a lungful of CO2 in? Try it someday - it has the same effect as someone punching you in the face. So I'd suggest taking your finger off the 9mm trigger and downgrading your Home Defence Systems to a strategically place CO2 fire extinguisher or two. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Exactly.I would also suggest that it would increase the likelihood of intruders taking a shoot first ask questions later approach if confronted in order to avoid getting shot themselves. And you could use them to put out fires too...... Bonus!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Put yourself in the mind of a burglar. Are you going to rob:
a) the defenseless rich old woman?orb) the middle age man whom possibly has a Beretta 9mm?do you want to risk getting shot? or do you want to escape cleanly? Maybe hes got only non-lethal rounds, so as to maim you until police arive. uh-oh, you should have chosen the helpless old lady.

Defenceless rich old women will always be a target for crime. Whether guns are a factor in society or not. In Britain generally speaking the only middle aged men who own Bereta 9mm guns are dangerous criminals who if found with such a weapon will be arrested and improsined. Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia Ideally I want to see the UK remain as gun free as possible. You guys in the US can come to your own conclusions but I think our current laws work for us.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add link

Seriously?It's a tricky question. The middle aged man is probably out during the day, so I'd wait around until he left and rob him then. If I was worried there might be someone at home and I thought there was a firearm on site I'd probably take a weapon of my own - prefarably a firearm.On the other hand, the defenseless old lady can just be pushed to the ground and I could intimidate her with a piece of metal or just brute strength. But she is more likely to be at home, so the chances of having to deal with her is increased.Ultimately, since possessing firearms is mostly illegal in this country and the chances are that a black market firearm has been used in a serious crime and I don't want to take the risk of being associated with that crime, or the crime of posession I'd probably think twice about any job that required a firearm.Then again, if I was feeling devious and I had good reason to believe the man had an illegal firearm, I could shop him in and take the opportunity of him being at the police station to rob his house.If guns were legal, then maybe the old woman has one too. I'd have to be sure someone was out, or take them by surprise. I might even steal the gun while I'm there.Of course, I think we agree that a smart burglar will avoid a house which is defended with heavy weapons if possible.Now - you come home and find your wife in bed with your best friend. You are really angry.There is a chance you will make a decision to kill one or both of them and that mindset will last but a few fleeting moments. Which is more likely, that you can kill them with your gun before your regain sanity or that you will stab or bludgeon them to death before you regain sanity?Or you are having an argument with a friend, it gets heated. He throws a punch, you retaliate. Things get out of hand. One of you reaches for a weapon. Under what conditions is someone more likely to die? If the weapon is a knife, or if the weapon is a gun?I don't think I've seen much in the way of discussion about these kidns of situation. Or much in the way of suicide either for that matter. Maybe that might be a fruitful avenue?

The middle-aged man is more likely to prove a problem than the old lady quite aside from his having a gun or no. Which would mean only rich old ladies get burgled in society? Clearly that's not the way burglary happens - for want of sufficient rich old ladies.There is nothing stopping the old lady having a gun anyway so the question becomes one of likelyhood - in the event guns were made legal and available. If I were a burglar dealing with inestimatable likelyhood of facing a gun then I'd be sure to carry a gun with me.All of which increase the chances of folk getting killed whether innocent burglary victims or guilty of burgling victims.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Ok, maybe a better scenario would help:a) A home you are fairly certain doesn't have a gun because it is illegal to own one, and you have one you got from the black marketorb) a home who very well may have a gun because it is legal and the owner has taken the proper courses in firearm safety.My guess is, if you are a criminal, you most likely have not had proper training in weapons safety, so you would be less inclined to go toe to toe with an individual who has. Would you pick a fist fight if you thought the guy might be a UFC fighter or a boxer?That is my stance: if you are to register a firearm, you should be required to be certified annually, or even bi-annually.I'm in the U.S. and my constitution says I can own a gun, so don't tell me I can't because you are scared of guns because you don't know how to handle them properly. (indirect statement, not meant at any one individual here)Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I feel like i'm about to be the target of numerous bloggers on here, but here it goes;Although i'm not a vengeful person, i believe that one should be allowed to own a gun and that gun control laws should not be strengthened. More government oversite (i.e. sticking their noses) into our lives is not what Americans need. I'm okay with universal healthcare (though not so with having private insurance companies still allowed to kick around), but trying to have strict control of or complete removal of guns seems to smack of big brother. It makes me wonder how many weremacht and SS officers would have been killed by the Jews they were going after if people were allowed to own guns in Germany and German-occupied Soviet Union.Having said this, there are other ways to defend yourself and your home from an intruder; dogs, baseballs (throw one real good and you can bring the hurt; put one or several into a sock, and you have a fairl good mace), cue balls (see methods used for baseballs), throwing kives, baseball bats, stun guns, spray mace, pepper spray, trank dart (perferably one that works quickly), nail gun (how are you going to make that one illegal, or control it?), super loud security system (though i wouldn't use it alone), sword (kitana would probably work best among swords to make a burglar need a new clean pair of shorts), exotic pet (imagine the face on a burglar or serial killer if they see an 800 lbs Siberian Tiger watchin them. But exotic "pets", at least the big ones, are dangeorus to pet owners themselves, and i wouldn't recommend them), spear, slingshot (used by IRA), etc, but guns would probably do better than most.No matter what you use, a crook is coming into a home knowing that a person inside might have weaponry and are potentially dangerous, and therefore will most likely be armed themselves. Its a question of whether you have the armament to put up a fight or nothing at all and allow yourself to be robbed, raped or killed,putting your faith into the police department, who'll most likely wont arrive on time to save you. No amount of peace signs and "all you need is love" is going to stop a bad guy from doing bad to you.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

And lets remember; getting rid of all guns or making strict gun control laws wont stop mass murder; the 9/11 hijackes used box cutters, not guns, to take over the planes, and the Oklahoma city bombing was carried out not by armed men, but a guy in a ryder truck.
Likewise, the world trade center bombing didn't involve guns either.Archie bunker might have said it best when told about how many people are killed by guns;"Would you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?"

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

If you have one in the UK you face a 5 year jail term just for possession. You need to have some pretty serious criminal intent to risk that. Probably criminal intent beyond robbing some easily robbed old ladies. So by your reasoning criminals will have guns anyway and society will thus be safer if every household also has a gun and training with which to retaliate. By your reasoning I would have thought the US should be a considerably safer place than the UK. I am not convinced that this is the case. Sounds like a sensible measure in societies where guns are legally owned. Nobody is denying this. But I would question whether or not this makes the US a safer place. I am not telling you that you should do anything. I suppose what I am scared of is A) People who cannot handle guns properly having access to guns B) People who can handle guns all too well using them when they would otherwise not do so purely because they are relatively easily available.I live in what is supposedly one of the roughest parts of inner city London and I just don't see how adding guns to the already explosive mix of poverty, drugs and crime will be anything but bad for anyone there. For that reason I would oppose any US style pro-gun legislation being introduced here in the UK.

Do you not game hunt in the UK? Would you be against hunters owning firearms as well? Sportshooters? In the US, we tried this thing called "prohibition". Let's just say....it didn't have the desired effect.

I conceded that owning a gun is likely to deter a burglar from breaking into your house when you are at home but will likely increase the probability the burglar will carry a gun (for self defense against trigger happy home owners).If I was going to rob a house, I wouldn't use my black market weapon without very good reason. I might get caught, I might kill someone and all of these things are bad for my robbing career. If they don't own a gun, why would I take one?I am geniunely interested in what you have to say regarding the other side of the coin though - that of 'heat of passion' situations where owning a gun might turn a black eye and broken ribs into a lethal hole in the body. Is the deterrent effect compensated for by an arms race with thieves and possible increase in heat of passion homicides/suicides?I'm not taking a stand here, I'm just wondering where you stand on this?

To prove yourself a threat. If I point my finger at you, will you give me wallet? If I point a Desert Eagle at your face, NOW will you give me your wallet? Me personally: I would get more gratification from beating the ever living shit out of "the other guy" with my bare hands, then spitting on his bloody face, only to laugh in HER face and say: "you're fucking around on me with HIM??? You can have you little pussy boy." of course, I am ex-military and I know how to wield a firearm and I know the dangers they cause. Therefor, I would NOT shoot first.If my family home was under attack from multiple intruders, you are Fucking-A right I will NOT hesitate to protect my children/significant other. Be that with a Glock, bow and arrow, a shotgun, what have you. That is MY house. You have no business there, get the fuck out.A firearm is a lethal weapon and should only be used on another human being if you feel death from them is imminent. This is why I am all for necessitating registration, safety courses, and range time, all so as to associate you with this weapon and ensure you are fully aware with the power it has.Edited by hooah212002, : added emphasis