I live in a city of ~100,000 people. From one of the links you provided (which, BTW, says fewer criminals go armed into a home than non-residential crimes) it appears that the crime rate for "violent home invasions" is 23 per 100,000 population (Our City Hall counts 35,000 households). So in my city there are fewer than two "violent home invasions" per month. That's not enough for me to start worrying about my safety. 23 per 35,000 households is 23,000 per 35million, or about 69,000 per 105million.
Your figure of 3,600,000 invasions in a country of 110,000,000 households (USA) is either way off base, or us Kool-aid drinking Canadians are doing something right to be fifty times safer in our homes than Americans.
My point? I feel safe (anecdotally), I am safe (statistically). People who arm themselves because of perceived crime stats do not feel safe.
Go read a book on statistics. None of those figures refers to the rarity of home invasions. They are "of all the home invasions, here's a breakdown of them..."
Let's make it easier, and I'll try to use small words so you'll understand. Ask your friends if they have ever been home invaded. Ask you family if they have ever been home invaded. Now go back to your friends and ask if they KNOW of anyone who has been home invaded. Now back to your family and ask if they KNOW of anyone who has been home invaded.
I was out on Tuesday night with a couple of dozen of friends and none of them have ever been home invaded, nor did they know of anyone who has been. I asked my family too, and my work colleagues. None of them knew of someone who had either - but of course they've all heard about it in the news.
Now, based on that, should I be worried about being home invaded to the point where I arm myself and am prepared to kill someone? Bullshit I'm not.
Premeditated attacks in the home are hugely rare despite what you see on CSI, and anyway if someone is in your home in order to attack/kill/rape your family, you're unlikely to know since you'll be the first to be killed by them. Someone THAT intent on getting at your person or family will have done their homework and won't take chances.
Much, much more likely is burglary. Which as far as I am concerned should never carry the death penalty.
Disrupting someone's tranquility is not an excuse to kill someone. At least not where I live. Maybe somewhere inhabited by sociopaths maybe, the ones that think it's OK to kill someone.
They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof.
All the proof you have is that they have broken into your home. Nothing beyond that at all. Yet it's legal for you to shoot them dead. This is the law I am questioning - you've already jump a few conclusions past the proof and such jumps would cost a human being their life. You see nothing wrong with that?
Please feel free to join in the discussion when you've successfully decoupled the idea that a slashdot UID is in any way a clue to someone's physical age.
For the Conservatives to win would mean them doing better in the next election than in the last. Unbelievable if they poured money into Trident at the expense of the NHS and social care.
IMO, most likely outcome would be a coalition, this time LibLab now that Brown has gone.
My fear is that in the current confusion, people would vote BNP.
If they're breaking into an occupied private residence, it's pretty reasonable to assume they're a helluva lot more than a mere "trespasser."
Maybe, but if someone's life is at stake (i.e. if you're about to shoot them dead), isn't certainty worth a try?
Trespassing is what I do when I go explore abandoned industrial buildings. It's not breaking into some family's home at 2 a.m.
It's also walking through someone's patio door on a summer afternoon, which if uninvited will get you full of lead I expect.
Best case scenario, that is a "thief." Much worst case scenarios include "kidnapper," "rapist," and "murderer." And I'm not particularly inclined to give the guy who's breaking into my house the benefit of the doubt.
So in the best case scenario, you'd still shoot a thief on the off-chance you might get killed yourself? The guy is just a thief, yet you'd shoot him dead because you're scared you may be kidnapped or raped or murdered?
I've likely been giving this thought for longer than you've been alive. The irony of the one-liner reply dissing the use of a one-liner is lovely though.
Why not wade in with some thoughts yourself, assuming you have opinions on the issue.
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm?
How do you know they are? Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home
The govt in the UK is a coalition, the minor party would not allow extended defence spending and so such a move would spark a No Confidence vote, and in the resulting General Election the Conservatives would be painted by every other party as Evil.
There's no way you can convince the UK voter that belts must tighten even more while spending money on more military, and a UK govt will listen to the voter before any other foreign power at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an unreasonable search, and they do not have a warrant. So what happened to the 4th Amendment?
If they don't want to get touched, then they shouldn't object to the scans.
Logical fallacy: false dilemma.
Why, is it illegal to have aluminium foil in your pants?
tl;dr
I live in a city of ~100,000 people. From one of the links you provided (which, BTW, says fewer criminals go armed into a home than non-residential crimes) it appears that the crime rate for "violent home invasions" is 23 per 100,000 population (Our City Hall counts 35,000 households). So in my city there are fewer than two "violent home invasions" per month. That's not enough for me to start worrying about my safety. 23 per 35,000 households is 23,000 per 35million, or about 69,000 per 105million.
Your figure of 3,600,000 invasions in a country of 110,000,000 households (USA) is either way off base, or us Kool-aid drinking Canadians are doing something right to be fifty times safer in our homes than Americans.
My point? I feel safe (anecdotally), I am safe (statistically). People who arm themselves because of perceived crime stats do not feel safe.
Go read a book on statistics. None of those figures refers to the rarity of home invasions. They are "of all the home invasions, here's a breakdown of them ..."
Let's make it easier, and I'll try to use small words so you'll understand. Ask your friends if they have ever been home invaded. Ask you family if they have ever been home invaded. Now go back to your friends and ask if they KNOW of anyone who has been home invaded. Now back to your family and ask if they KNOW of anyone who has been home invaded.
I was out on Tuesday night with a couple of dozen of friends and none of them have ever been home invaded, nor did they know of anyone who has been. I asked my family too, and my work colleagues. None of them knew of someone who had either - but of course they've all heard about it in the news.
Now, based on that, should I be worried about being home invaded to the point where I arm myself and am prepared to kill someone? Bullshit I'm not.
Four in a population of 37 million counts as hugely rare.
Premeditated attacks in the home are hugely rare despite what you see on CSI, and anyway if someone is in your home in order to attack/kill/rape your family, you're unlikely to know since you'll be the first to be killed by them. Someone THAT intent on getting at your person or family will have done their homework and won't take chances.
Much, much more likely is burglary. Which as far as I am concerned should never carry the death penalty.
Where did I say they get my sympathy?
Disrupting someone's tranquility is not an excuse to kill someone. At least not where I live. Maybe somewhere inhabited by sociopaths maybe, the ones that think it's OK to kill someone.
We do - what we don't have is the right to kill someone just because they are in our house.
Experience, Motherfucker. Do you speak it?
They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof.
All the proof you have is that they have broken into your home. Nothing beyond that at all. Yet it's legal for you to shoot them dead. This is the law I am questioning - you've already jump a few conclusions past the proof and such jumps would cost a human being their life. You see nothing wrong with that?
Seems you have this backward - if having a gun does not mean intent to shoot, then you cannot prove intent to kill by the burglar.
In the dark, someone in your house may or may not be armed, but the law says you're allowed to kill them. That's a stupid law IMO.
Please feel free to join in the discussion when you've successfully decoupled the idea that a slashdot UID is in any way a clue to someone's physical age.
For the Conservatives to win would mean them doing better in the next election than in the last. Unbelievable if they poured money into Trident at the expense of the NHS and social care.
IMO, most likely outcome would be a coalition, this time LibLab now that Brown has gone.
My fear is that in the current confusion, people would vote BNP.
If they're breaking into an occupied private residence, it's pretty reasonable to assume they're a helluva lot more than a mere "trespasser."
Maybe, but if someone's life is at stake (i.e. if you're about to shoot them dead), isn't certainty worth a try?
Trespassing is what I do when I go explore abandoned industrial buildings. It's not breaking into some family's home at 2 a.m.
It's also walking through someone's patio door on a summer afternoon, which if uninvited will get you full of lead I expect.
Best case scenario, that is a "thief." Much worst case scenarios include "kidnapper," "rapist," and "murderer." And I'm not particularly inclined to give the guy who's breaking into my house the benefit of the doubt.
So in the best case scenario, you'd still shoot a thief on the off-chance you might get killed yourself? The guy is just a thief, yet you'd shoot him dead because you're scared you may be kidnapped or raped or murdered?
Meh, no. It's my real name. But not Gordon.
Yay, so breaking and entering became a capital offence? Sure, it's more serious, but you'd kill someone for breaking and entering?
I've likely been giving this thought for longer than you've been alive. The irony of the one-liner reply dissing the use of a one-liner is lovely though.
Why not wade in with some thoughts yourself, assuming you have opinions on the issue.
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm?
How do you know they are? Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home
Citation, else anecdotal.
The govt in the UK is a coalition, the minor party would not allow extended defence spending and so such a move would spark a No Confidence vote, and in the resulting General Election the Conservatives would be painted by every other party as Evil.
There's no way you can convince the UK voter that belts must tighten even more while spending money on more military, and a UK govt will listen to the voter before any other foreign power at the moment.
Yet it's perfectly OK to kill someone for trespass? Sounds like the kool-aid is all yours.
Considering the austerity measures currently in place in the UK, I very much doubt there'll be much Trident upgrading in the next decade.
Vasily - one ping only.
DROP AXE