Summations Only

Please see the stats in my above post. The only reason we're discussing homeowners is that they have easy access to lethal force (in the US). I'd argue exactly the same - actually more vehemently - against being able to carry weapons in public. No - someone died. In this country, that is no small thing. Life is just much cheaper in the US. I would defend myself to what I felt was necessary. I would apply appropriate force or flee if was the better option. Would I try to kill my opponent? No, not unless it was absolutely necessary.

Apples to oranges. The US is different than the UK. We're poorer in a lot of ways, and don't do as much for people which means some of them turn to crime.UK to UK comparisons are apples to apples, though, and its clear that your war on guns hasn't made anyone safer. Quite the opposite, from a first reading of the trends:
Handgun ownership by law-abiding citizens has a positive effect on crime, just as handgun ownership by criminals has a negative (increased) effect on crime. Of course the most effective way to battle crime is to eliminate the social and economic conditions that breed it. The UK is a lot farther along on that project than we are here. We're not less civilized because we let people own guns - something that is in the very founding document of our nation, a nation formed in armed rebellion against an oppressive global empire - but we're less civilized because we let people die of expensive diseases, homelessness, and desperation.

Only if they own a gun. You want to make it harder, here, to own a gun? So that guns are only in the hands of those trusted to use them responsibly?Fine by me. Really?Been to many soccer games lately?

Err, that's a range of legal ownership from a max of 2.06% of the population down to 1.61%. How much effect do you think that would ever have on total violent crime? I'm trying to bring some relevance to the evidential statistics here. Please help by vetting your own. No, you're less civilised because you (generic) "worship" guns and the ownership of guns, and have a serious lack of regard for human life outside your own family and friends. You, crash, seemingly exemplify this latter quality in this thread and I am rather surprised. Yeah, and the quicker you kick that shit out and grow-up as a nation, the better.

oh crash, dragging out stereotypes is not becoming...But if it makes you happy - I'll pay to have all the remaining violent wankers shipped over to you, and you can use them for traget practice.

Quite a bit. Why not? What if the people losing their guns are precisely the people who most benefited from them? What if a slight decrease in ownership was perceived as making crime much safer, by criminals?How much positive result are you prepared to ascribe to a .4% reduction in gun ownership? How much are you prepared to ascribe gun violence to the only 20% of Americans who actually do own guns? I can't deny that, if we as a culture more valued human life, we might have universal health care. I think that's a lot more probative in regards to our value of life than the fact that both of our countries have a Castle Doctrine standard for home defense. We did, after all, get it from you. Really? You're surprised that the guy who thinks human life doesn't really begin until age 2 isn't prepared to risk innocent life for the benefit of criminals?

Sorry, Australia is the chute for violent wankers. We're the dumping ground for your religious fundamentalists.Or, maybe you guys could come up with a solution for your social problems besides deportation. Just a thought?

That distinction isn't as clearcut as you make it out to be. Alone, in the dark, afraid and "reticent" to fire another shot, the homeowner is ill-equiped to make that assessment. And he's equally ill-equiped to make an equally important assessment when the police arrive and don't know who's at fault.

Which is why it's necessary to extend such deference to the judgments of those called upon to use force to defend themselves.

Nobody is "called upon" to use force to defend themselves. Some people choose to do it. Even in your own country, some choose not to and in much of the world, most choose not to. There's no reason to give special treatment to one choice or the other in court.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Yes, they are. They're literally forced to do it, or die.Having to do something or die is literally the definition of being forced to do it, and criminals place innocent people in exactly that situation, thousands of times every year, in your country as well as mine.That's why the notion of "self-defense" exists; it's the recognition that sometimes criminals put innocent people in the position of having to kill them or die, and we recognize that it was the criminal's choice and not the victim's to create that situation.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Those who choose not to defend themselves against criminals breaking into their houses often end up in coffins, not in court.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What I was referring to as opinion, was that the right course of action is knowing the extent of their presence before you start using the deadly force.And that's why I think your only point is irrelevant, because simply being in my house like that is reason enough for me to use deadly force.What are you gonna do, bust out your notepad and weigh up the possible extents as they're rummaging through your house and/or getting around to attacking you? No, not when people are breaking into each others' homes! I wouldn't shoot someone who wasn't moving..."My Plan" said that I shoot if they weren't running away, which technically would include someone who was not moving, but I wouldn't shoot someone who wasn't moving, thus the ambiguity.But you are partially correct: If I've announced that I have a gun and they aren't essentially trying not to get shot, then because they're in my house I'm justified in using deadly force to protect myself. Now, my next course of action was not *just* start shooting. You failed to incorporate the part about identifying your target. If they're not moving at all, of if they look like a deaf retard, then I'm not gonna be shooting them. For all the reasons that Crashforg has explained better than I could that I don't feal like rewriting at this time.Basically, I'm the only one whose capable of assessing the situation at the time and if I think that I have to use deadly force to defend myself, then the criminal's safety isn't the one we should be erroring on the side of.It doesn't matter why they're there, simply being there makes it criminal already. That's why your point doesn't really matter.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I've asked you to substantiate that claim for Canada and you haven't done so yet. I have also pointed out that in Canada, self defense is not considered a valid reason for acquiring a firearm.I've lived here for nearly 50 years, a few blocks from one of the highest crime areas in Canada, and I've never once been "called upon" to defend my life. I've never met anybody who has. Either the danger is much greater in the U.S. or you guys are blowing it up out of all proportion.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Hardly anybody ever has to. I don't understand how that could possibly justify sweeping disarmament. But then, unlike you I'm capable of learning from other people's experience as well as my own. If you're in the rare circumstance where you have to defend yourself from an attacker, how much is it going to help you that the situation is rare?You've never once in your life thought tactically, have you? I mean it's obvious you've put literally zero thought into how you might resist violent predation by a criminal.