Maybe it is OK to defend yourself....

[merphie]

if you are asking if it is excessive force within an American legal juristiction, I don't know, Im not that familiar your laws. My personal view is that the phrase "shot on the spot" definitely implies excessive force, ie shooting before you know what the person is doing. For example..."you are on my property and may possibly intend me harm" is not , in my opinion, sufficient justification to start shooting. They may simply be your wifes lover.

I asked for your opinion not a comment on our laws. You are dancing around the question. I didn't say someone on your property. I addressed that senario of tresspassing in my last post. I did not say shoot at shadows. I assume you would have the common sense to identify the target.

The question was if a man breaking into your house (You said a junkie) and you confront the intruder in your living room. If you had a gun would you shoot him?

So, what is your answer?

 

[The Fool]

I asked for your opinion not a comment on our laws. You are dancing around the question. I didn't say someone on your property. I addressed that senario of tresspassing in my last post. I did not say shoot at shadows. I assume you would have the common sense to identify the target.

The question was if a man breaking into your house (You said a junkie) and you confront the intruder in your living room. If you had a gun would you shoot him?

So, what is your answer?

sorry M but I wasn't trying to dance around anything...No, I would not shoot anybody unless I feared for my life or the life of someone else in the house. If I catch someone trying to steal my TV, and this has happened to me... I just don't see the need to execute someone for break and enter....There is already a penalty for that crime and I think execution would be excessive.
Having said that I would not have a gun in the house as I want to minimise the risk of gunshot wounds to my family.

ok, you owe me one now..Is there such a thing as excessive force? Should the principle of self defence have a limit where somebody should be charged with a crime for overstepping a reasonable response?

 

[corplinx]

sorry M but I wasn't trying to dance around anything...No, I would not shoot anybody unless I feared for my life or the life of someone else in the house. If I catch someone trying to steal my TV, and this has happened to me... I just don't see the need to execute someone for break and enter....There is already a penalty for that crime and I think execution would be excessive.
Having said that I would not have a gun in the house as I want to minimise the risk of gunshot wounds to my family.

ok, you owe me one now..Is there such a thing as excessive force? Should the principle of self defence have a limit where somebody should be charged with a crime for overstepping a reasonable response?

In all US states except Texas it is illegal to defend your property with lethal force.

In the rest, you are only allowed to use lethal force if your life is in peril. In other words, if someone was stealing your mailbox, you are not allowed to use lethal force. If someone punches you in a pub, you are not allowed to use lethal force. You get the picture.

 

[merphie]

sorry M but I wasn't trying to dance around anything...No, I would not shoot anybody unless I feared for my life or the life of someone else in the house. If I catch someone trying to steal my TV, and this has happened to me... I just don't see the need to execute someone for break and enter....There is already a penalty for that crime and I think execution would be excessive.
Having said that I would not have a gun in the house as I want to minimise the risk of gunshot wounds to my family.

ok, you owe me one now..Is there such a thing as excessive force? Should the principle of self defence have a limit where somebody should be charged with a crime for overstepping a reasonable response?

Ok, I just wanted you opinion on the manner. What if you confront the intruder and he pulls a knife after he drops your TV?

You want to prevent your family from gun wounds by not having a personal gun in the house? How would this result? Is there a danger you would shoot your family members? In that case, I don't think you should have a gun either.

I don't owe you anything. I asked a question and you never answered the question. You keep throwing what if's. When you initially confront an intruder you can not assume his intentions. He could see you and run. He could see you and attack. Do you think he is going to calmly carry your things out. "Excuse me, I am robbing you and I will be done shortly."

Yes, there is limits on excessive force. That is prescribed by law here. Those who cross that line should be in jail and do end up there.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't know what question you are referring too.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I see. Let's take it step by step, then.

How many people is the 2.3 million number based on?

A very simple question. Shouldn't require a very complicated reply.

The question is the one in the middle above, the words with a '?' at the end.

I'm guessing you either don't know the answer or are to embarrassed to answer it. Prove us wrong.

 

[merphie]

The question is the one in the middle above, the words with a '?' at the end.

I'm guessing you either don't know the answer or are to embarrassed to answer it. Prove us wrong.

I already have answered it. You ignored the response.

 

[CFLarsen]

I already have answered it. You ignored the response.

You did? Care to repeat it? How many people is the 2.3 million number based on?

All you need to do is write a number. It will be far quicker than write a post like the above.

 

[DavidJames]

I already have answered it. You ignored the response.

I looked through this thread and couldn't find anything but you dodging the question. Make a fool out of me, show me where you answered it. I'll be glad to apologize.

 

[CFLarsen]

All it takes is a number.

 

[merphie]

You did? Care to repeat it? How many people is the 2.3 million number based on?

All you need to do is write a number. It will be far quicker than write a post like the above.

Are you looking for a number or a source?

I refused to answer you until you could reasonable demonstrate that you have read the article in the reference. Otherwise you are just being argumentative. The article clearly states where the information came from.

 

[merphie]

I looked through this thread and couldn't find anything but you dodging the question. Make a fool out of me, show me where you answered it. I'll be glad to apologize.

I guess you didn't read it either. Why even bother? All you are going to do is make some typical response where you make assumptions because you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Part of the information came from the NCVS. There were more sources, but I don't have the information in front of me. If you read the article you would know this.

 

[DavidJames]

If you read the article you would know this.

The question at hand is whether you answered the question. First you refused to answer, then you have claimed that you did answer it, yet your answer is nowhere to be found. Show me where you answered and I will apologize. Or simple reply with your answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you looking for a number or a source?

A number. This has been pointed out to you several times. A number, merphie.

I refused to answer you until you could reasonable demonstrate that you have read the article in the reference. Otherwise you are just being argumentative. The article clearly states where the information came from.

Ah, now the old "Well, you have to prove that you read it before I can stoop to mention that number...." excuse.

Do you have the number, yes or no?

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess you didn't read it either. Why even bother? All you are going to do is make some typical response where you make assumptions because you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Part of the information came from the NCVS. There were more sources, but I don't have the information in front of me. If you read the article you would know this.

Look, all we ask for is a number. No need for these lengthy posts filled with excuses.

Just...the number....OK?

 

[merphie]

The question at hand is whether you answered the question. First you refused to answer, then you have claimed that you did answer it, yet your answer is nowhere to be found. Show me where you answered and I will apologize. Or simple reply with your answer.

I don't need your apology. I have answered. Futhermore I have given you a link to where the answer is. In fact, I have posted more than one place to find the answer.

I can't help you if you refuse to read. This is your typical post.

 

[merphie]

A number. This has been pointed out to you several times. A number, merphie.

So you change from wanting a source to wanting a number? I gave you that already. 2.4 million.

Ah, now the old "Well, you have to prove that you read it before I can stoop to mention that number...." excuse.

No excuse. IT's fact. You are asking obvious questions that were clearly answered in two post that I made on this thread.

 

[CFLarsen]

So you change from wanting a source to wanting a number? I gave you that already. 2.4 million.

The question was:

How many people is the 2.3 million number based on?

Let's hear that number. How many people, merphie?

No excuse. IT's fact. You are asking obvious questions that were clearly answered in two post that I made on this thread.

Wrong. Now give us that number. No more stalling, please. No more excuses. No more irrelevant posts.

Just that number.

 

[merphie]

The question was:

How many people is the 2.3 million number based on?

Let's hear that number. How many people, merphie?

Wrong. Now give us that number. No more stalling, please. No more excuses. No more irrelevant posts.

Just that number.

You still haven't read anything I've posted. I have no reason to believe you would read anything else.

Vernick refers to "a relatively small sample size" used in my research, noting that "about 5,000 respondents" were interviewed. This was substantially correct (it was 4,977), but this is in fact an unusually large sample for survey research. Most national surveys have samples in the 600-1600 range. The number of persons who reported a DGU is not "the sample size." Rather, the sample size is the number of persons who were asked the DGU question, i.e. 4,977. It is this number which influences the precision of the estimates, not the number who nswer "Yes" to the DGU question. In any case, Vernick's guess that only 50 people reported a DGU is incorrect. A total of 194 persons (weighted; 213 unweighted cases) reported a DGU involving either themselves or someone else in their household, 165 reported a DGU in which they had personally participated in the previous five years, and 66 reported a personal DGU in the past one year preceding the survey (see Table 2, p. 54 of the report).

Source

To date, there have been at least 14 surveys implying anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year (see Table 1 of enclosed report). For Vernick to hint that my estimate was an isolated fluke rather than a common result is more than a little deceptive. That there are many other surveys implying frequency DGUs is common knowledge among scholars who study this subject, as it has been reported in both previous published articles (e.g. Social Problems, volume 35, p. 3, February, 1988) and in my book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (p.146), winner of the 1993 Hindelang Award, granted by the American Society of Criminology to the most outstanding book of the preceding several years. These are hardly obscure information sources to serious scholars, and no competent student of the subject could claim to be unaware of these numerous surveys.

Source

 

[CFLarsen]

You still haven't read anything I've posted. I have no reason to believe you would read anything else.

Ah, but I wasn't asking for your entire production here. I was asking for a number. You gave that just now. Strange that it had to take you so long to find it.

Now.........

If "fewer than one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses result in the death of the attacker" - and I am quoting Lott here - then we should be looking at maximum 2,300 gun deaths from defensive gun uses only - annually. Perhaps a bit less - let's say 2,000.

But since there was about 6,500 people shot in 1999 (close enough) (Source: US Census), that means that almost a third of all gun deaths come from defensive use.

Do you agree with this?

 

[merphie]

Ah, but I wasn't asking for your entire production here. I was asking for a number. You gave that just now. Strange that it had to take you so long to find it.

I gave the information in a link. You were to lazy to read the linked articles. I have stated many times the information was contained in the links I posted. This simply shows that you have not read anything I have posted.

If "fewer than one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses result in the death of the attacker" - and I am quoting Lott here - then we should be looking at maximum 2,300 gun deaths from defensive gun uses only - annually. Perhaps a bit less - let's say 2,000.

But since there was about 6,500 people shot in 1999 (close enough) (Source: US Census), that means that almost a third of all gun deaths come from defensive use.

Do you agree with this?

No, you did not give a source for your information.