The ability to defend oneself is a very valuable right. As Shagansty mentioned there are downsides as well as advantages. The Japanese exchange student died simply because he didn’t fully understand where he was. Details are available on the net, but it certainly was not his fault. He was killed based on a misunderstanding-both his and the shooter. As was mentioned, the homeowner was investigated and cleared of any criminal penalty. His homeowner’s policy paid the family a good sum though. I to live in Louisiana, and in another example of a person dying needlessly because of a gun in the house, a homeowner in my subdivision came home unexpectedly and surprised a burgler-who had just found the gun the homeowner kept in the house for protection. His wife came looking for him a few hours later and found him and the gun still in the house. They arrested the vagrant-a man the homeowner had been giving odd jobs to as a way to help. We could go on, with lots of examples where the gun was used as intended and homeowners and private citizens are alive because of it. It is profitless to try to solve this by example. Nor I suspect can it be solved by adding up the bodies-good and bad. It is a social choice. Life isn’t completely safe or sane. Does your society want to live where a homeowner has the means to defend his property with deadly force? Or do you want to live in a society where the homeowner has to hope the lock on the bedroom door will hold long enough for the police to get there-but is highly likely to be alive when the police do get there? I am American. I prefer our model-though I don’t own a gun since I don’t know how to use one. But different societies live differently. I don’t think safety can be the method anyone uses to pick which one is “better”. It is simply which one you prefer.
That’s very interesting and more than a little weird to me as an American.
If that works, great, but what about those who would do you harm or take advantage of you?
According to the CIA World Factbook, this is the ethnic makeup of Finland: Finn 93.4%, Swede 5.6%, Russian 0.5%, Estonian 0.3%, Roma (Gypsy) 0.1%, Sami 0.1% (2006). So 93% of you are Finn. That probably helps a lot, I think a lot of tensions between neighbors are due to racial or cultural differences.
Ripped from the headlines
(British) Businessman who grabbed a thug for smashing a window is charged with assault
Note the source, hardly one known for its level-headed reporting of such matters. A million quid says the charges are dropped.
I’ve been burgled several times.
To add to the pool of data, I have never been burgled in my 40 years of life.
I have lived for most of my life in Spain, Japan and the Netherlands. In Spain, in 3 cities, 2 of which are the two biggest of the land (Madrid and Barcelona). In Japan, I lived in Tokyo and its metropolitan area (but Japan is a super-safe country, so it might not count). In the Netherlands, I live in the metropolitan area of The Hague.
I have never taken any particular precautions (knock on wood!). I don’t own weapons (unless kitchen knives for chopping and carving meat count). Well, wrong. I own one folding Spanish fighting knife, but it is more of a sentimental thing than anything else (similar to the third one portrayed in this page).
Never been burgled, never been assaulted. Been pick-pocketed once, but the joke was on the pickpocket, for he emptied my wallet of a bunch of mostly worthless old Romanian Lei that I kept for my collection of foreign money and which, if he ever managed to get exchanged, would net him something like 50 cents.
I have been in many places around the world, and never had anything untoward happening to me. Whether I have been humongously lucky, I don’t know.
Just my 2 eurocent!
I think you’re probably speaking tongue in cheek, but in case you’re not. I tend to disagree. Inserting guns (for personal self-defence) into the British culture would, I think, be pretty disastrous - regardless whether or not it is true that a generally-armed society is safer (or not) than a generally-unarmed one - such a radical shift in the way things work would be deeply unsettling - and it’s this equation - deeply unsettled, plus guns - that I think would cause nasty things to happen.
Maybe things would eventually settle down to a new kind of peace - and maybe it would be better than what we currently have (or maybe not - there’s no real way to be sure) - but I think that getting there would involve clambering over a huge pile of corpses. Things aren’t so bad as they are now.
The tenor of this debate is wrong. Burglers are not trying to face down a home owner. They are just after the money, often to pay for their drugs. A confrontation with a home owner is the last thing they want . Thats why they avoid houses with dogs. Not because they couldn’t handle the dog, but because it makes their occupation more dangerous and increases the chances of getting caught.
These stories are more about random murderers ,not thieves. They just want to get in and out as fast and quietly as possible.
Strange, the guys who tried to break into my old house (five different occasions over 11 years) didn’t seem to mind the idea that I was actually there until I pulled out the gun. THEN they decided to leave. Especially the last one, who didn’t mind the butcher knife in my hand OR the 911 call he could hear me making while he was busting on my door.
In retrospect, I’m really glad that I accidentally locked my keys in the house that first Christmas day and had to break a window to get back in. Because then I was forced to replace the back door. I chose a steel core with really deep locks and my father did a damned good job of installing it. No one ever got through it, and I’m sure it was probably tested more when I wasn’t there than the five times when I was.
Again. That is not a normal B and E.
True, but it is indicative of the crime in that neighborhood, and it sure as hell gets your attention.
And then as an engineer, there is the concept of planning for the worst case. 
Not sure what you based this on. We’ve had a number of break-ins in my city where the occupents specifically made their presence known. Captive audiences know where all the good stuff is and can provide pin numbers to bank cards.
The bad guys stayed and interrogated the home owner?
I don’t understand this either. Wouldn’t that be akin to kidnapping or holding someone against there will?
Dunno. Never experienced it, wasn’t going to give anyone the chance. Despite then-current state laws requiring retreat from household invaders (since changed), I figured that anyone who was willing to invade my house knowing that I was there intended to do me harm and I was therefore willing to meet them with deadly force. In all five cases, the mere sight of the gun caused them to depart at high speed. And like I say every time I repeat these stories: I never fired the gun, I never even pointed it directly at anyone.
Now if I was in England, for example, knowing that no one (allegedly) has firearms, I would not assume that the intruder intended to do me harm, since they know their victims are unarmed and under the English legal system, they’re basically free to do as they wish as they don’t harm anyone. Ie, the cops are not going to make any effort to find them unless they really hurt someone.
Speak of the Devil…
Here we see that the Brits are looking at doing away with prison terms for burglars.
Respect for property and person? Not in Britain. Not anymore.
I live in the USA. My old apartment was burgled once, attempts to break in were made twice – once while I was there, I’ve been mugged by an armed robber once, had students armed with loaded guns removed from my classroom twice, and had items stolen from my classroom countless times. I’ve also been stalked three times. And once I had a family camp out in my front yard overnight – without asking. And there is more.
I felt much safer in Europe than in the United States. Northern Europe felt like a cocoon of security compared with what I am used to.
It’s not that those virtually gunless societies don’t trust their citizens personally. It’s just that they know that the odds are that a gun is more likely to kill you than defend you. So they did what seemed reasonable and decided they aren’t desireable That makes sense to me.
But as long as the Second Amendment remains as it is, I continue to support your rights as a fellow American even though I would like to see this Amendment amended.
In keeping with the OP, there was a writer who lived in my county of origin who was tried for murder when he shot a trespasser on his property. The author’s name was Jesse Hill Ford. If I remember correctly, the trespasser was outside his house and was a relative of a woman who was the basis for one of the characters in his most famous book. Ford was acquited.
yep.
Oh hell no. That’s messed up. What’s the punishment for bitch-slapping judges and is the sentence reduced if you do it while robbing them?
You toed the Daily Express line there and conveniently ignored the fact that these are proposals from advisors, most likely to be ignored entirely due to the political sensitivity of such a suggestion.