Unfortunatly for many years people have been taught, don't fight back, wait for the police to arrive. This is part of the same anti gun/knofe/self defense culture and as you poined out the events of 9/1 show this does not work. Police can't be everywhere all the time.

Be glade that you do not live in the UK.

If that had happened in the UK anyone lifting one finger to protect those babies can expect to kiss goodbye to their freedom.

Why?

Because had someone so much as harmed one hair on that P.O.S. head, irrespective of circumstance, the likely hood is that they would be tried for Murder/Manslaughter/G.B.H

The theoretical position is that you may use reasonable force, which most people (like myself) would consider to be deadly force. The practice, as demonstrated by the De Mendez affair, is somewhat different.

Leigh, that happens here too, depending on which state you are in. Where I live, the "victim" (the one originally perpatrating the crime) often sues the aggressors, stating they went beyond their means. Now, of course, the courts USUALLY dismiss these cases out of hand with adequate proof, stating that there wouldnt BE this situation without the original intended crime. But, sometimes, the anti-violence people want to solve everything with hugs...well, everything except the person defending himself/others. They are invariably labelled criminals...sometimes, the circular logic is scary.

I sure hope that changes for you. I always felt safe traveling
in GB. People trying to defend children shouldn't have
to worry about facing charges.

Hmm, this has distilled into a Jodie Foster gendre. We have either "Panic" or "The Brave One" as examples. In both movies, she plays a would be victim. In the one case, she defers to the defensive, in the other, she opts to become the pursuer.

Is it a tenet, or a cliche, then, of the saying "the best defense is a good offense"? I think Jodie, as with Chuck, would lead us to believe that fighting back is almost always going to be preferable, provided that you have a reasonable skillset, the right mindset, and a bit of the element of surprise on your side. I think it is quite possible to actually prepare in such a way as to stack the odds in your favor in most such chances of confrontation.

I grew up having a huge crush on that woman...still do. She'd never put up with me like the wife does, so it will forever remain an unrequited fantasy. Some things are better left in the shadows I reckon.

Hey bro, calling me a troll and other insults just because you disagree with what I'm saying is totally out of line.

People talk tough and think they could take on bad guys any time. Maybe you are every bit as hard as you sound. Maybe your wife really could beat any knife-wielding psycho with a baseball bat. If it's true, power to you. But if you've never done it for real, you just don't know what you're talking about.

I've been in a couple of violent confrontations myself and I know for a fact (a sad fact it is) very few people can handle themselves. The ones that talk tough are usually the first to crap their pants.

In an ideal world, an armed population would be able to protect themselves against crime. In reality, it doesn't work that way at all. The vast majority of people just lack the guts and skills to defend themselves, let alone others. Then there's the legal system that may well screw you up if you do stand up and fight back. All it takes is a judge who thinks you used "excessive" force and you'll end up in jail. Now that's TEOTWAWKI. Do I think that's ok? Hell no. But it's a fact of life and something that can't be changed just like that so you'd better take it into consideration.

But it's not even the point. What I'm saying is there are many places in the world where a lot of people legally own guns and the crime rate is very low (think of Switzerland, Finland). In most developed countries gun laws are very strict. Few people own weapons and the crime rate is low (most of Europe, Japan etc.). There are plenty of guns in the US and the crime rate is high (so clearly, something isn't working perfectly). In some parts of the world there are even more guns per capita and the crime rate is extreme.

This would suggest that gun ownership in itself has little to do with maintaining law and order. As a rule, what actually stops crime is a well run state with an effective government, happy citizens, good economy, responsive law enforcement and a good legal system. Just arming the population will do little to ensure the safety of the population if the other factors are not present.

Anyway, have fun discussing the topic but please keep the tone down. It's an online forum, not your local watering hole. As for the mods, feel free to delete my posts if you think that'll keep the tone civil.

Now I'm really outta here - peace and wishing you all a good day!

Your looking at too large of areas so your making too broad of generalizations. Look at cities like DC, Chicago where guns are banned and then see how much higher the crime rate is compares to a similar sized city someplace in TX where everyone has a gun and crime is low. Now look at rural America whwre every house has a gun rack in every bedroom and crime is low. Even the inner city ghettos where the media thinks 10 years olds are shooting each other wth AK's isn;t true, those inner cities there are very few guns since most can't afford to even buy a bullet.

Look at 9/11, when a couple people took over planes with box cutters and ask why? You really think a dozen grown men couldn't oevrpower a couple people armed with 1/2" long blades? They didn't because they are taught to fear guns and knives and to not fight back. When you grow up around guns and knives and quit fearing them you learn that a tiny box cutter will barely make it through your clothes and give a small cut that can eb treated with a band aid so there isn;t much to fear when the guy armed with a box cutter tells you so sit down and get flown to your death.

If I remember my US history correctly, every male between the ages of 15 and 60 (with at least 1 top and 1 opposing bottom tooth) were required by law to own a firearm and serve in the militia. I would venture to say, regardless of wealth or lack thereof, gun ownership was most more common back then.

Violent criminals generally did not last too long in that time period; many were shot in the process of committing their crime. There were few prisons and those that did exist were used mainly to hold accused, but not yet convicted individuals. Convicted criminals were either executed or branded, branding allowed one “get to go free card”, as if caught a second time, execution was generally the penalty. Long-term imprisonment was generally considered inhumane.

Pete

Well, no. You can use appropriate force. He couldn't and shouldn't have been killed on sight, of course, but once his intentions were clear he could have been stopped.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the de Menezes here. He was an innocent man and the police should not have killed him. They made numerous mistakes, not least failing to positively ID their suspect. Most of the mistakes were made by Command, not on the ground. It should not have happened, and shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

"There are plenty of guns in the US and the crime rate is high (so clearly, something isn't working perfectly)."

Of course! Americans tend to be poorly educated, our court system has nothing to do with justice, and we have a farce called The War on Drugs.

But if guns were outlawed across the U.S. today, the results would be disastrous. Why? Two words: RESPONSE TIME. I live in a county comprised of 727 sq. miles. The last I heard, we had six deputies on duty at any given time. If they're busy with a violent domestic incident or a drunk with a weapon, I'm SOL.

If there were two relatively high-class gated communities across the road from each other, and each had a sign, and one said "This is a gun-free neighborhood" and the other said "This neighborhood is insured by Smith & Wesson, Glock and Colt, which would a criminal choose? They're not all totally stupid.

Know how to use it, willing to use it, know the difference between right and wrong, and no weapon. A bad place to be.

Sue