back to article Naked intruder cracks one off in Florida rampage drama

Doctors have attempted to determine just what mind-altering substance may have provoked a carnival worker to allegedly jump naked onto a Florida couple's roof, charge into the house, smash a TV, masturbate on the living room floor, defecate on the premises and drink the contents of a wet-dry vacuum cleaner before he finally …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. JaitcH
    FAIL

    Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

    "battery, occupied burglary and resisting without violence": Assault, breaking in to a home and trying to escape without hitting a cop.

    The owner/shooter is typical of US gun owners I know - they have the goods but not the skills.

    "Mrs Land whipped out a .38 and fired three shots" implies she was carrying on her person - and a totally useless shot.

    And Mr Land grabbed a 12-gauge (bore) shotgun - obviously he didn't care for either his furniture or the perpetrator. Guess people are a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law since some people have been incarcerated after claiming that defence following the murder of Trevon.

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      1. Khaptain

        Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

        Missing the guy 3 times meant that she was potentially putting 3 other peoples lifes at risk with stray bullets.

        The kid next door, the postman and the local telephone engineer......or even Mr Land....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

          > Missing the guy 3 times meant that she was potentially putting 3 other peoples lifes at risk

          From the original article:

          Bruni then headed toward the couple's son's bedroom, where several guns were stored, so the man's wife fired three warning shots from a .38 revolver.

          It appears they were warning shots, fired inside the home so no chance of them exiting through the walls of the house.

          Like jake said:

          Sounds to me like Mr. & Mrs. Land know exactly how, and when, to use firearms.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

            "As Bruni was allegedly headed to where guns were stored in the son’s bedroom, the wife fired three shots from a .38 revolver, possibly as a warning."

            I read this as they thought the perp was heading to their armoury aka son's bedroom (how old is the son and does he play violent video games? The NRA would be proud)

            So they already had a .38 and shotgun handy in other parts of the house?

          2. Psyx

            Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

            "Sounds to me like Mr. & Mrs. Land know exactly how, and when, to use firearms."

            Yes...but possibly not where to keep them!

            "...the couple's son's bedroom, where several guns were stored..."

            [Although we don't know if that was where the gun-safe was kept and they were secured to be fair. They might have been locked up, but if they weren't, it's a pretty dumb place to keep firearms.]

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

              > Yes...but possibly not where to keep them!

              You don't know how old the son is, he might not even live there since parents, in general, will often call a room their "sons room" for many years after they have left. There is also no mention of the son in any of the reports and any reporter worth their salt would happily juice up the story if there was even the remote possibility a minor could have been harmed (what if you son had been home etc).

              1. Psyx
                Holmes

                Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

                "You don't know how old the son is, he might not even live there...."

                Hence the caveat.

            2. Tom 13

              Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

              Given that it's Florida (aka Retirement land for the USA) I'm betting "their son's bedroom" means the guest room that they keep for when their 30-40 year old son (and possibly his wife) come to visit and is otherwise unused. Or perhaps like my friend's parents who live in Florida, it is the room in which their 50 year old son who is divorced and a recovering alcoholic lives. It's the sort of media misdirect I've come to expect since they continue to report 18-21 year old criminals as 'kids.'

            3. Anonymous Coward
              FAIL

              Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

              "...the couple's son's bedroom, where several guns were stored..."

              Therein lies the problem. How many bloody guns does a person need???

              Personally there should be an IQ test for gun ownership in America. That would eliminate most owners of them straight away.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Stop

                Re: Jim Booth Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ...

                "..... How many bloody guns does a person need???...." Well, let's look at the options. For skeet/trap/clays I'd want a double barrel over-under shotgun though probably not a pump or auto shotgun; for TR/MR I'd want a bolt-action rifle in 7.62mm NATO; I don't shoot F-class as it's too expensive but that would be an even more powerful rifle; plus a .22 rifle for plinking; and for nostalgia I'd want an SLR. With the exception of the SLR the rest are perfectly legal in the UK, no hillbillies or rednecks involved. There are plenty of such collections in the UK, all perfectly legal. They are just sports equipment intended for different roles in the sport, just like someone that owns a set of golf clubs - do you insist golfers can only use one type of club or that having too many irons will mean a golfer is guaranteed to go mug someone with one? Gosh, I must be due a child-killing spree any day, right?

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

            > fired inside the home so no chance of them exiting through the walls of the house.

            You clearly have NO idea of the penetrating power of a .38 bullet, especially given the wood & insulation board construction of many US houses.

            1. Psyx

              Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

              To be fair, a .38 is about the most sensible hand-gun calibre you can use if you want to avoid over-penetration, and we don't know the ammunition type loaded, either.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

              Historically most South Florida homes have been built using CBS (Concrete-Block-Stucco) construction with a lot of steel bar reinforcement to tie the roof to the earth. Might be able to get through it with a 50 caliber.

          4. Maty

            Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

            ' ... shots, fired inside the home so no chance of them exiting through the walls'. Making culture-based assumptions here, Condiment.

            You are probably thinking of a solid brick-built British home (where bullets bouncing around inside might be an issue if the plaster isn't thick). Many North American homes have walls consisting of two layers of chipboard with insulation between them, and plastic siding on the outside.

            A .38 will go right through. Heck, you can do it with a nail-gun if you are not careful.

          5. MahFL22

            Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

            You forget how flimsy American homes can be, a .38 could go right through the wall, a shot gun is a better idea, as long as your not using too big of a shot size......

          6. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

            Except the average American house is made out of paper and so bullets would easily have been able to find their way outside into an innocent bystander.

            I would check the TV for bullet holes.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

              @AC Nobody said this was an "average American house". There are 115 million households in the US, which comprise properties made with all kinds of various materials, just like anywhere else.

              @ sisk "statistics" : You would have to compare the ratio of gun crimes to gun owners against the ratio of vehicle accident deaths to vehicle drivers - not the absolute numbers - in order for it to have any remotely relevant meaning at all.

              Further, it would probably be valuable to consider the relative proportion of incidents that were in fact accidents and the concept of fault in road collisions. To me it would seem easier to make a mistake and accidentally crash a car than it would be to accidentally take a gun from a safe and fire it at someone. Someone who is involved in a minor altercation on the road isn't automatically deemed unsafe or irresponsible.

        2. Don Jefe
          Meh

          Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

          Firstly, that is why a pistol for home defense is a bad idea; shotguns are best.

          Secondly, three missed shots isn't bad. Most law enforcement shooting take place at 3 yards or less and often only end because both sides run out of ammunition. It is a lot harder to shoot and hit your target with a pistol than video games and TV would have you believe.

        3. Stevelane
          Childcatcher

          Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

          Last year a woman was jailed for 20 years for firing a warning shot into a wall in here own home. So for three shots this woman should get sixty years. The home invader will get a warning and be told to go back to his day job writing policy documents for the NRA.

          1. Don Jefe
            Meh

            Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

            You never fire warning shots. If the situation permits you might give a verbal warning but the general rule is that if you draw or point your firearm at someone shoot them.

            Not only is a warning shot a waste of time, you lose valuable ammunition for the inevitable misses and/or the person may be wacked out on something and doesn't fall with the first few shots.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

              "You never fire warning shots....." If the situation permits it why not? i'd much rather bring an end to proceedings without anyone needing medical services or a mortician.

              ".....If the situation permits you might give a verbal warning but the general rule is that if you draw or point your firearm at someone shoot them...." No, no, no! By all means, if the situation is so dire that your only option is to fire in self-defence then I'm all with you, otherwise you may actually not have reached the point of actual and legal self-defence.

              "....Not only is a warning shot a waste of time....". If it stops the attack or the likelyhood of the attack, shows your intent to defend yourself, and will not get you sent down for manslaughter/murder, how is it a waste of time? Remember reasonable force? And remember that there are plenty of anti-gun crusaders in the law enforcement arena that will happily prosecute you if you have gone straight to DEFCON 1. In court a warning shot will at least show you attempted to defuse the situation before applying lethal force.

              ".....you lose valuable ammunition for the inevitable misses and/or the person may be wacked out on something and doesn't fall with the first few shots....." Come on, if you can't get a stopper in twelve rounds then you'd probably not get one with thirteen. I would instead suggest you get some proper instruction from a qualified trainer and practice, practice, practice. Ammunition is actually cheap and range time will build up your confidence that you can stop someone with rounds to spare. Hopefully you will never have to use the training, but you don't buy car insurance because you're certain to have an RTA but because you might.

              1. Don Jefe
                Happy

                Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

                Matt:

                If you had any active firearms training you would know that you are taught never to fire a warning shot, therefore your last is obviously invalidated as well as everything but range time being cheap. See below:

                People stopping ammunition is NOT cheap. A box of 20 rounds of the 230 Gr Speer Gold Dot in .45 ACP runs about $25 (+taxes) in the U.S. Well over $1 per round so a fairly expensive thing if you shoot a 100 rounds a week which is fairly normal. Hell it is easy to shoot that many rounds in a day at the range. Sure you can shoot cheap ass unjacketed lead or FMJ ball ammo but not only are those not designed to stop people, every type of round shoots dramatically differently so you have to practice with what you plan to use. Training with cheap ammo (say around $9.00 for .45 ACP for box of 20) is just a waste of time if that's not the rounds you carry for self defense.

                You said if you can't get them with twelve you can't get them with thirteen and that is just an asinine comment. Why do you think police or military don't carry revolvers anymore? In a live fire pistol situation accuracy can fall off nearly 95% at just three yards distance even for trained professionals so they'd rather have nineteen rounds than six or seven, twelve or thirteen. Hitting a live target when it is shooting or even scaring you is terribly difficult.

                Lastly, years ago the NRA did a study on firearms accuracy and found that a pistol is the worst firearm for self defense (because EVERYONE misses A LOT) and their only redeeming factor is that they are easier to carry around than a rifle or shotgun. Even the NRA concluded that a pistol is a backup weapon only and should only even be considered if no other option is available. It says a lot if even the NRA knocks on the effectiveness of a weapon.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

                  "If you had any active firearms training you would know that you are taught never to fire a warning shot...." Gosh, I didn't know you had taken every single course in the whole World! Did you take the FBI one? http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-13/news/mn-189_1_fbi-agent

                  Did you maybe write this manual that explains which situations US forces do NOT need to use a warning shot?

                  http://familysurvivalprotocol.com/2012/07/08/a-newly-leaked-us-army-military-police-training-manual-for-civil-disturbance-operations/

                  And here's an example of someone resorting to a warning shot causing armed intruders to flee, without shooting to kill as you advise (maybe he was not trained, or trained on Mars...?):

                  (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/fake-fbi-agents-try-and-break-into-home)

                  Yes, I know most law agencies in the US do not advise warning shots for their recruits but that is largely due to the legal repurcussions of accidentally shooting someone and not because they deny they can be effective:

                  http://www.laaw.com/sig_warnshot.htm

                  Guess you didn't read this: ".....Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers....."

                  (http://handgundefense.com/facts.htm)

                  A warning shot should be part of every defence routine UNLESS you live in an area that has a legal restriction on them (I vaguely remember being told Kentucky has some law that a warning shot consitutes an actual attack or the like). It should always be the very last resort to actually deliberately shoot someone. If it is the last resort, fine, but if not a warning shot is still a reasonable idea.

                  "....People stopping ammunition is NOT cheap...." If you're shooting that much then take up reloading cartrdiges at home, it really reduces the cost and allows you to experiment with loadings if you want.

                  "....every type of round shoots dramatically differently so you have to practice with what you plan to use...." Stop talking complete cobblers. Most home intrusion scenarios are at a range of less than twenty feet (usually a lot less). The aiming point is a two-foot-by-one box, representing the thorax (forget headshots in a quick-moving engagement unless you really can shoot like Carlos Hathcok). At twenty feet it won't make a blind bit of difference if you shoot wadcutter, FMJ or any other ammunition. Indeed, it is common for .357 Magnum revolver owners to practice with lower-powered and cheaper .38 Special ammuntion for exactly that reason. Please STFU and go back to wherever it was you thought you learned about guns.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

        > Sounds to me like Mr. & Mrs. Land know exactly how, and when, to use firearms.

        Sounds to me like a baseball bat would have been more effective, less dangerous to the bystanders, and a great deal more satisfying.

        1. Fatman
          IT Angle

          Re: ...great deal more satisfying.

          I agree.

          That ID10T (the IT angle here), is lucky that Mr Land did not just beat the shit out of him with said bat. A few, well placed strikes to the fingers, toes, ankles, knees, wrists and elbows; would have put the nutter in a world of hurt. And provide a strong incentive to never do that again.

      3. Andrew Moore

        @Jake

        "They had the nutter subdued, with no deaths & minimal damage."

        He started masturbating AFTER the shots were fired. What part of that indicates that he was 'subdued'?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Happy

          Re: @Jake

          Some people find it hot - chicks with firearms :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yryV-5TfwvE

          Maybe the missus was a looker :P

        2. Bill Neal
          Devil

          Re: @Jake

          Welcome to Florida, my home.

      4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

        Problem is that the average poster to these forums has been so programmed to hate gun-owners they will never admit that the Lands armed up only after the intruder knocked one of them over, "declined" to communicate, and started smashing their home up. Even then, they didn't shoot him, and a shotgun at short range would have put an end to Bruni even if loaded with birdshot, he probably would have bled to death before an ambulance could have arrived even if the shot was not immediately fatal. No, for the average poster here it is all the Lands' fault for not having twenty foot walls around their grounds, steel doors and bars on all their windows.

        1. Valeyard
          Holmes

          Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

          so "knocking someone over" warrants an armed response with 2 guns?

          at what point in the article was he a threat to anyone? you get more threatening behaviour outside a pub on a friday night, this guy was just tripping. it was offensive and probably incredibly frustrating, but he doesn't sound like he was in a state to hit back if you kicked his legs from under him or chinned him, or that indeed he particularly wanted to hurt anyone.

          I'm not one at all to go softly on intruders(being in middlesbrough it's happened to me often enough..) but the cops would've been able to deal with someone so obvious even if he did get away, he wasn't a sober smackhead career-burgular; they tend to try not to spray their DNA over everything

          Their eyes must've lit up when they realised they were finally gonna get a chance to point their guns at someone and be the action hero LAY DOWN MOTHERFUCKER. get a grip you're not jack bauer.

          sherlock, cos the persence of wank on his shirtsleeves links him with the crime

        2. Joel 1
          Coat

          Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

          "twenty foot walls around their grounds"

          Surely that's more of an easy hurdling course? Not really an obstacle as such....

          I would have thought that one twenty-foot wall would have been more of a protection

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Matt Bryant

          Can you imagine the cries if this guy was shot! I imagine the entire event would be spun that some poor disturbed individual accidentally entered someones house and they shot him. I imagine the damage, battery and resisting arrest would be left out and a huge description of the lethal weapon + any other firearm they use.

          The difference in story can be seen by the 3 shots fired, but no actual information as to why. She could have been an awful shot and a danger to those around her, but thats unlikely. I say unlikely because a gun owner isnt automatically (or even likely) homicidal. Chances are she knew exactly what she was doing and may have stopped him causing further damage/inflicting harm. His sitting to masturbate sounds like the gun was effective and in his nutty state had to occupy himself while subdued. We can clearly show that the gun owners are not nutters because they didnt shoot him even with provocation.

          As we saw with the other 2 recent gun topics, there are plenty who would prefer to protect the criminals human rights and think all victims should be super strong with reliable police enforcement (unlikely). Your comment about programmed to hate gun owners is ridiculously spot on.

          1. Psyx
            Stop

            Re: @Matt Bryant

            "Your comment about programmed to hate gun owners is ridiculously spot on."

            No it's not. It's a rallying call of gun-owners to build a 'Us vs. Them' style mentality and camaraderie.

            The idea that all non firearm toting citizens want to hate gun-owners and take away all their toys is simple propaganda, propagated by the more extreme members of the lobby who want to heighten the sense of persecution in order to create unity and dissuade more moderate gun-owners to not compromise.

            Exactly the same tactic was used in the US elections when the more extreme elements of the Right painted Obama voters as all being work-shy criminals and people 'who hate us' who wanted to take everyone's livelihood away, thus creating a political community cemented not by shared policies but by hatred and mistrust of the opposing viewpoint.

            The more extreme end of the political/gun-owning spectrum needs to invoke hatred of the other side of the debate in order to influence moderates.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: Psyx Re: @Matt Bryant

              "....No it's not. It's a rallying call of gun-owners to build a 'Us vs. Them' style mentality and camaraderie....." Sorry, but you're waaaaaaay too late to hang that one on the gun-owners. After all, when someone continues on a course with complete disregard for all evidence to the contrary of their stated beliefs, you call that either hypocrisy, faith or opportunism, if you're being generous. US gun-owners only have to look at the example of the UK, where handguns were banned on a wave of drummed up hype and deliberately ill-informed prejudice, to see that trusting in common sense breaking out in the anti-gun lobby is not likely. That it has become embedded in US party politics guarantees that sense and facts are the last consideration.

              In every case in the UK where the authorities have tried to look at the actual causes of gun-crime they are shouted down with the mantra that removing privately-owned weapons MUST reduce gun-crime. No-one will contemplate re-legalising private handgun ownership even though the ban didn't reduce gun-crime. For example, when the UK police forces tried to explain the facts of gun-crime in London - largely black-on-black criminal shootings tied to drug gang turf disputes - they were accused of being racist. Targeted actions like Operation Trident have been politically handicapped and kept under the PC microscope because actually identifying the main cause of gun-crime in London - black gang culture - was too politically sensitive for most. For the PC-afflicted it was easier to avoid the issue and insist that banning handguns from law-abiding citizens was somehow a better answer than saying to certain ethnic groups "there is a problem in your community's young men we need to address." Shootings like Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1997), which were exceptionally rare failures in the license process and the supervision of mentally-unstable people in the community, were seized on as an excuse to ban legally-owned handguns and other firearms.

              When confronted with that type of unreasoning, non-evidence-based, almost religious belief, are you surprised gun-owners get defensive? In the UK, if you should suggest to gun clubs they should ask for the re-legalisation of handgun ownership they react with horror. Not because they disagree, but because they worry that if they do draw attention to themselves then the anti-gun lobby will be back for another attempt to destroy their sport by banning all firearms.

              1. Psyx

                Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

                "Sorry, but you're waaaaaaay too late to hang that one on the gun-owners"

                Umm, no chap. It's nothing new. It's a classic tactic for garnering support amongst moderates in any political or social situation. I'm not 'hanging' the invention of such tactics on anyone, merely saying that they are very much in use as part of the gun-control debate.

                "When confronted with that type of unreasoning, non-evidence-based, almost religious belief, are you surprised gun-owners get defensive?"

                And when confronted by people who own dozens of firearms and say things like "you can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands" or "I've got my guns so that when Obama's New World Order come to imprison me, I can fight for my family's freedom" can you see why a lot of non gun-owners get defensive?

                [At least when the anti-gun lobby get on a paranoid and delusional froth they aren't armed with semi-automatics!]

                There are extremes on either side, and painting any member of the opposing camp as an extremist gets the debate nowhere, and makes people not want to compromise.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Thumb Up

                  @Rampant Spaniel 28th January 2013 13:13 GMT

                  > Not everyone who owns an Audi is a tit, I'm sure there are normal Audi owners who know how to use an indicator and don't tailgate you at 120mph.

                  Errm no you just can't say this .... they are all tits .... had enough run in's with Audi's

                  > Not everyone who owns a gun or supports the rights of others to do so is a loon :-)

                  I could be convinced.

                  1. Rampant Spaniel

                    Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                    @Titus,

                    No really, there are some of us 'in the middle', we just aren't as loud as the screamers at either end of the argument. Gun control is a seriously heated topic and it's the whack jobs at either end of the spectrum that screw it up.

                    I don't own a gun, I have previously and I have used one for work. I could own one now, I just don't feel the need.

                    I don't think a ban on guns is going to happen anytime soon. Nor is it appropriate to resist any attempt to curb some of the more lethal weapon and accessories. We won't stop all gun deaths, we need to reduce them and it needs to be done fairly. Banned guns need to be purchased by the govt (and not sent to Mexico) in an amnesty. Semi auto rifles, high capacity mags etc should be banned. Guns should be stored in locked safes when not in ue and inspections by the police need to happen to ensure this occurs. The police need better funding and we need to put some serious effort into reducing the causes of gun crime, better education and mental health care for a start. No one thing will stop the problem but that doesn't mean we should do nothing.

                    We also need to look at exceptions. The pro gun lobby showed off some footage from someones property down on the border with Mexico with drug runners armed to the teeth. Some poor sod had this in his back yard. Now if the police and army aren't stopping it, sure I'd take the land owners semi auto away. I'd also give him the keys to the loca National Guard armoury. That doesn't mean somebody in Utah who doesn't have a back yard full of well armed Mexicans needs semi automatic rifles. However, just like the abortion debate, the lot at either end of the spectrum won't compromise and just scream loudly at each other.

                    Please be assured, we aren't all mad! There may be as many as 7 of us capable of looking objectively at a situation :-)

                    Oh and as for having a gun pointed at me, the more recent situations were, riding the ninja through a town with a gang of (mostly) harley riders who took exception to the 'crotch rocket' in their town.

                    Another time I was drinking with a friend the night before a location shoot and stepped outside a bar to take a call, some locals got bent out of shape that I wasn't speaking English on the phone.

                    Another time I stopped for gas in the wrong part of town and my skin was the wrong colour for the local gang or whatever they were.

                    All 3 times in southern states. Shit happens.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      @Rampant Spaniel - Monday 28th January 2013 14:46 GMT

                      Oh and as for having a gun pointed .. removed a bit .. my skin was the wrong colour for the local gang or whatever they were. All 3 times in southern states. Shit happens.

                      Ah those ‘Good Ole boys’ from the Southern States. Ya knows here in the UK it is hard for us to conceive anybody like the folks (in certain areas) of the Confe Southern states. I sort of understand having traveled a bit in Kentucky myself, and watched the Top Gear special road trip in the US of A (particularly the bit in Alabama).

                      That aside my thoughts on gun control are very much on the fence. I have spoken with at least one of the other 7 folks out you way capable of objectively arguing the case for gun ownership, but when I look at the statistics they tend to argue against.

                      Thinking about it I would guess the answer is probably to introduce more sensible gun ownership rules in the states that don’t yet have them? A license if you can prove you are responsible and sane, and have good reason to have a gun..... Difficult to imagine why a private home owner would need a military grade assault weapon however if you generate a reason.

                      Perhaps issue the licenses on a case by case basis onus, and costs entirely down to the gun owner ongoing?

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        Thumb Up

                        Re: @Rampant Spaniel - Monday 28th January 2013 14:46 GMT

                        ".....Ah those ‘Good Ole boys’ from the Southern States. Ya knows here in the UK it is hard for us to conceive anybody like the folks (in certain areas) of the Confe Southern states. I sort of understand having traveled a bit in Kentucky myself, and watched the Top Gear special road trip in the US of A (particularly the bit in Alabama)....." Having traveled the South, especially Texas, Florida and Georgia, I'd have to say I not only felt more welcome but also safer than in many of the Eastern cities, especially New York. The high gun-crime rates of Washington DC and Chicago would seem to underline the South is not some haven of bible-thumping, gun-wielding psycopaths, that in fact the problem is more centred on "civilised" areas.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Thumb Up

                          Re: @Matt Bryant 17:35

                          I can't disagree with you Matt I too remember a warm welcome from folks in the Southern States. My comment is partly based on a couple of trips one into one of the not so good areas in Cincinnati, and a drive in Kentucky.

                          I guess the visit to Cincinnati could be put down to it being one of the more central "civilized" areas. The drive in Kentucky may have just been prejudice in that I drove up a minor hill north of Frankfort, driving along thinking this is just like the Walton's, then getting a little further up the road. The road by now was getting pretty narrow and looking in around I though nah this is more 'deliverance' than the Walton's.

                          The phrase 'Good Ole Boys' as was explained to me by folks (the welcoming ones etc) it could have a couple of meanings, one being essentially defined as red neck folks in pick up, shot gun rack and being driven errm like an AUDI. These being folks that were well worth avoiding.

                    2. Psyx
                      Thumb Up

                      Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                      "Shit happens."

                      I think the point is that shit *doesn't have to* happen, and that it'd be nicer to live in a world where people didn't have the option of pointing lethal weapons at each other for owning the incorrect model of motorcycle.

                      That said, 100% agreement with your post. Well said and my own views and experiences are very similar.

                    3. Tom 13

                      Re: needs semi automatic rifles.

                      And with that statement you discredit yourself completely as someone who doesn't even know WTF a 'semi automatic' rifle is.

                2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Boffin

                  Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

                  "....And when confronted by people who own dozens of firearms and say things like "you can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands" or "I've got my guns so that when Obama's New World Order come to imprison me, I can fight for my family's freedom" can you see why a lot of non gun-owners get defensive?...." Sorry, chap, but I have never met a gun owner that has said anything like that. Even way off the beaten track in Texas, with people the anti-gun crowd would sneer at as "rednecks", there is more of a glum acceptance that if the anti-gun lobby win they will have to give up their weapons. There is no talk of "resisting", just a worry that if they don't make use of every legal recourse then the anti-gun lobby will out-maneuver them in court. What you forget is this is not a chicken-and-egg situation, the anti-gun crowd were the ones that started the confrontational approach.

                  ".....At least when the anti-gun lobby get on a paranoid and delusional froth they aren't armed with semi-automatics!...." No, they're armed with lawyers and marketeers. The former will twist the law to make gun-ownership as problematic, limited or just expensive as possible, and the latter will take any anti-gun instance and hype it beyond belief (Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc.), carefully ignoring the actual problem people involved.

                  1. Psyx
                    Holmes

                    Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

                    "Sorry, chap, but I have never met a gun owner that has said anything like that."

                    ...Apart from Charleton Heston, obviously.

                    If you type the quote into Google and find it on forums, just see how many 'right ons!' it gets. Likewise as regards the fringe "I'm waiting for it to all go to hell and then I will FIGHT for my freedom" camp, I implore you to just spend 5 minutes in the name of widening your horizons looking for these people on Google. They are genuinely fucking terrifying and precisely the people who seem too mentally unstable to be owning .50 BMG rifles.

                    And yes: There are people who want all guns banned regardless of use banned too.

                    "the anti-gun crowd were the ones that started the confrontational approach."

                    Well...yeah, because the gun-lobby had it all their own way. That's a little like saying "It was the abolitionists who started the confrontational approach... [because up until then, we were allowed slaves and there was no confrontation]"

                    "No, they're armed with lawyers and marketeers."

                    As opposed to the NRA, who aren't? Plus the enormous gun lobby and a lot of fire-arm manufacturers with vested financial interests? Hell: There aren't even many figures on the effects of gun-crime because the NRA prevented the CDC from gathering them in case it opposed their view.

                    C'mon: Please don't even TRY to go down the route that the anti-gun movement is being all nasty and using lawyers and PR, while all the gun-owners have is their steely pioneering spirit. Ultimately the pro-gun lobby has more money to throw around than the anti-gun crowd.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Thumb Down

                      Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

                      "....Apart from Charleton Heston, obviously...." Except I never met Heston. Or anyone like him. And it's not like I traveled America blindfolded, I went to ranges and talked to shooters in many States. You are simply quoting the extreme and trying to pass it off as mainstream.

                      "....Please don't even TRY to go down the route that the anti-gun movement is being all nasty and using lawyers and PR, while all the gun-owners have is their steely pioneering spirit....." I'm not, I'm simply pointing out that the anti-gun lobby went there first. WRT to the Charlton Heston comment, I have met several Yanks that have insisted they HAVE to repeal the Second Amendment, just to outlaw guns. These people were very nice, very civilised and educated, but hadn't a clue about guns or gun-owners. They were simply shocked when I said I shot regularly in the UK, almost like they thought they had "wiped out the disease" in the UK. So, sorry, but going on my experience you are much more likely to run into anti-gun extremists than pro-gun ones.

                      1. Psyx
                        FAIL

                        Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

                        "You are simply quoting the extreme and trying to pass it off as mainstream."

                        Don't talk balls Matt: I specifically SAID it was an extremist view. I'm *specifically* saying it's an extremist view FFS.

                        "I'm not, I'm simply pointing out that the anti-gun lobby went there first."

                        And I said: Of course they were confrontational first, because the gun lobby had all their own way. Another example: You have ten apples, I have none. According to you the moment I say "I want a goddam apple" then I'm somehow wrong for "being confrontational first".

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

                          ".....Don't talk balls Matt....." I wasn't, I was simply pointing out that it is much easier to find anti-gun extremism simply because their "arguments" are not based on facts, simply on emotion, so when they meet disagreement they tend to get more emotional, hence the jump to extremism.

                          ".....You have ten apples, I have none....." So go get your own apples you lazy twonk, or is this some form of Marxist argument - all apple ownership is theft? Your argument would have been more accurate if you'd said I had ten apples and not caused any problems; you had none because you preferred cucumbers (pfnarr); but some other guy had thrown an apple at you so you decided that made it right to ban ALL apples, regardless of the non-problematic status of the vast majority of apple owners. As far as you're concerned there is no reason to own an apple, and you've been fed all these horror stories about apple throwers for years, so you simply choose not to look at empirical evidence but instead go with the emotional "ban all apples, it feels right" response. Full marks for being a sensitive, caring person, but zero marks for logical thought process.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Psyx 12:23

              You seem deluded. "It's a rallying call of gun-owners to build a 'Us vs. Them' style mentality and camaraderie." is your mentality showing through. The gun owners call for protection of family and home. Self defence. Protection of the weak. If this is beyond you then so be it but you told Matt not to speak for others are thinking and yet you are just as big headed. You then turn camaraderie into a bad thing? I assume you apply this to all sports and other group related activities?

              "The idea that all non firearm toting citizens want to hate gun-owners and take away all their toys is simple propaganda" is funny when you again speak for the minds of others. The loudest voices who oppose guns are rabid nuts and the general opposition in the UK is to absolute propaganda against the gun. People should be allowed to own or not own as they please within the law. The law should not be disarming victims so criminals can take over.

              I think you need to understand that there are extremes on both sides. However it is the anti gun group (not only the nuts) who will begin the name calling swiftly or accuse the law abiding gun owner of being some child hating nutter. And its often those uninformed or ignorant anti gun nuts who assume all gun owners are as nuts as the few on the fringe.

              At 12:16 you say its a dumb idea to leave the guns in their sons room. I again point out your bias of dumb assumption. While its a bad idea if the son is a young kid, I dont see his age anywhere. I point out that when I lived with my parents the guns were in my room and nobody elses. I was over 18 and a legally abiding, sensible gun owner.

              But dont let facts get in your way, you were saying...

              1. Psyx
                Stop

                Re: @Psyx 12:23

                "You seem deluded..our mentality showing through....big headed....your bias of dumb assumption. .."

                Quit with the name calling, or at least have the fortitude of opinion to post non-Anon.

                That aside... you've seemed to jump to the conclusion that I'm an anti-gun non-gun owner.

                "You then turn camaraderie into a bad thing?

                It is when it's used as a way to distance the herd from another and to invoke negative imagery and create hostility. Having a laugh with mates who support the same team is good. Shouting abuse at people because they don't support the same team is bad. Perhaps 'camaraderie' was a bad word, but creating a herd-mentality in order to cause friction is not a positive thing.

                "I assume you..."

                Don't assume you know what I think on other subjects based on a paragraph.

                . "It's a rallying call of gun-owners to build a 'Us vs. Them' style mentality and camaraderie." is your mentality showing through. The gun owners call for protection of family and home. Self defence. Protection of the weak. If this is beyond you then so be it but you told Matt not to speak for others are thinking and yet you are just as big headed. You then turn camaraderie into a bad thing? I assume you apply this to all sports and other group related activities?

                "The idea that all non firearm toting citizens want to hate gun-owners and take away all their toys is simple propaganda" is funny when you again speak for the minds of others. The loudest voices who oppose guns are rabid nuts and the general opposition in the UK is to absolute propaganda against the gun. People should be allowed to own or not own as they please within the law. The law should not be disarming victims so criminals can take over.

                "I think you need to understand that there are extremes on both sides. "

                I already do. Many non gun-owners view all gun-owners as NRA members who believe in automatic weapons all-round. Many gun-owners view all non-owners as hippies intent on ensuring they are all killed by burglars. It's the separation of viewpoints by extremists on each side that has led to a lack of willingness ot compromise.

                " I point out that when I lived with my parents the guns were in my room and nobody elses. I was over 18 and a legally abiding, sensible gun owner."

                So was that kid in the States.

                If I chose to possess firearms for home defence, then they would be in my own room rather than anyone else's, be they teenager or toddler.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Psyx 14:16

                  "Quit with the name calling, or at least have the fortitude of opinion to post non-Anon." I was not calling you names, I was directly analysing your comment. If you dont like it then dont do it. E.g. you complain at matt for speaking for others thoughts then you do it. And your comment suffered dumb assumptions I pointed out. And I will AC as I please thanks. Who are you to tell me when I should and shouldnt display my username?

                  I base my conclusion of you on your many comments over 3 topics on guns. Some of which you call me because I own guns and recognise their use in self defence.

                  I will agree that using herd mentality to guide any group to do bad is bad. But to assume that gun owners have a them vs us mentality is a dumb assumption, deluded and big headed to assume you know how a group of free individuals think. I would suggest your comments are more likely to cause the friction you mention.

                  "Don't assume you know what I think on other subjects based on a paragraph." yet you speak for all gun owners you know nothing about. I am still explaining how wrong your comment was.

                  "If I chose to possess firearms for home defence, then they would be in my own room rather than anyone else's, be they teenager or toddler." Which room is that? At which room may you need to defend yourself? What about security measures such as gun safes? Still not good enough? How about miles away with anti gun nutters guarding them with superhuman skills to beat up criminals? I say this after reading your views on extremists and lack of willingness to compromise.

                  First you must understand.

                  1. Psyx

                    Re: @Psyx 14:16

                    "Who are you to tell me when I should and shouldnt display my username?"

                    The name's at the side of the post.

                    "But to assume that gun owners have a them vs us mentality is a dumb assumption, deluded and big headed to assume you know how a group of free individuals think. I would suggest your comments are more likely to cause the friction you mention."

                    Because a lot of US do.

                    "Which room is that? At which room may you need to defend yourself? What about security measures such as gun safes?"

                    *If* I were keeping a firearm for home defence it'd be in the bedroom (where I'd be if my home was being invaded, in all likelihood. If I were still awake I'd be on the ground floor and could simply LEAVE through the other door). In a concealed gun safe next to my bed, where it is secure and not going to be accidentally used or stolen, thus putting another firearm in criminal hands. All firearms belong in gun safes.

                    Gun safes are only a security measure for the gun though. For the price of one and a firearm I could instead install a security system which would alert me to danger and a rope ladder to escape it.

        4. This post has been deleted by its author

        5. Psyx
          FAIL

          Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

          "the average poster to these forums"

          Matt;

          How about you don't decide what is going on in everyone else's head and start speaking for them? Stick to your own opinions instead of posting idiot ones and pretending that they're actually other people's.

        6. Katie Saucey
          Meh

          Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

          Huh, Well I'm the average Canadian poster here, and I own several guns (like most of my neighbours), but here in our great land I would be jailed if I even thought about defending myself against a wayward masturbater. In fact I'd probably get a talking down from the CBC commenter for referencing him as riff-raff (aka minority).

      5. jake Silver badge

        Re: My post of 07:59, in reply to Jaitch (was: Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such <<snip>>))

        Is not my post. ElReg edited it. Kindly blame ElReg if you disapprove, or applaud them if you approve, but keep me out of it. Ta.

    2. LarsG
      Meh

      Dammit

      He broke the 72" TV, a 72" TV for goodnesssake!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dammit

        I'm assuming that was the tech aspect of the article?

        1. Charlie van Becelaere
          IT Angle

          Re: Dammit

          If it were, one would expect the units to be linguine, not inches. I fear you'll have to look elsewhere for the tech aspect.

      2. Dan 55 Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Re: Dammit

        That remains to be proven in a court of law, a telly that size would just need someone to open the window on a breezy day and it'd fall over.

      3. adam payne

        Re: Dammit

        Did he break it or did Mrs Land shoot it and then knock it over?

      4. Steve Evans

        Re: Dammit

        Or at least 72" is what's going on the insurance claim...

      5. tekHedd
        Alert

        Re: Dammit

        Do we know the *brand* of the television in question?

        1. Fatman

          Re: Do we know the *brand* of the television in question?

          Karma would be well served if it was a Sony!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: they have the goods but not the skills.

      That is why I think the UK should change it s gun laws,

      make a gun license like the driving license, you have to pass a test to own one!

      then be a bit more relaxed about what they own (of course ensuring they actually own what their licensed for and each gun is registered...) that way the nuts out there would not get their hands on guns, as only sensible people would pass the test in theory!

      1. Gordon Lawrie

        @ Anonymouse Coward

        Have you been on the roads recently? Tests and licensing in no way prevent idiots from getting access to deadly machines and proceeding to act like feckless morons with them, be those guns or cars.

        1. TheOtherHobbes

          Re: @ Anonymouse Coward

          "Tests and licensing in no way prevent idiots from getting access to deadly machines and proceeding to act like feckless morons with them, be those guns or cars."

          Or parliaments and treasuries.

          Oh, wait. You don't need to be tested for those. Not in any useful sense, anyway.

          My mistake.

      2. Mark 110
        WTF?

        Re: they have the goods but not the skills.

        You are recommending legalising carrying guns based upon the quality of British driving!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20% of drivers seem to forget or ignore everything taught on lessons the second they leave the test centre. Another 30% are just useless. And now you want to give them guns as well . . . .

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Mark 110 Re: they have the goods but not the skills.

          "You are recommending legalising carrying guns based upon the quality of British driving.....And now you want to give them guns as well. . . . " Sorry if someone forgot to tell you, but there are actually plenty of shooters in the UK (http://www.nra.org.uk/). That car next to yours on the road may be being driven by one, they might be returning from a day at the range and be loaded up with shotguns and high-powered rifles. If you're an Audi driver you might want to think about that before you tailgate. :P

    4. Jedit Silver badge
      Headmaster

      "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

      Legal note (IANAL): SYG isn't the law that applies here. "Stand Your Ground" laws remove the duty to retreat from a public confrontation before using force if you are acting in defence of life, and are primarily invoked to allow white people to shoot black people - SYG has a habit of being thrown out as a defence when it's a black shooter or a white victim. This case is castle doctrine, which allows the residents of a property to defend themselves against intruders regardless of whether they believe their life is endangered.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

        "......primarily invoked to allow white people to shoot black people....." Ah, you were doing so well until the mask slipped and that little bit of racism crept in (and yes, reverse racism is still racism). Indeed, the Georgia State study found that the majority of people shot as a result of SYG defenses were white males shot by other white males.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

          "......primarily invoked to allow white people to shoot black people....."

          you didnt read it did you, just opened your mouth without puttingbrain in gear

      2. Rampant Spaniel

        Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

        I would hope the warning shots were fired up, the vast majority of American homes are made mostly of wood and there would be a risk of a stray bullet fragment injuring someone. Unpopular as it seems to be to suggest it, but they do seem to have been relatively restrained in their response. 3 warning shots is fair warning. If my kids had been in the house and it was me with the gun and he was running to my kids room there wouldn't have been a need for a 5th shot. However, I'm happy sticking at the baseball bat + angry cat level of home protection for now.

        It is easy to assume that all gun owners are nutters, most of the ones I knew growing up were drunk farmers (although they treated guns with respect), but unfortunately there was a definite spin put on this article because it's currently an easy cheap shot. Not all gun owners wander down the high street kitted out like they are hunting Predators. Some people live in places where mental, hopped up carnies break into your house, drink your carpet cleaner and hump your shag pile. I think I'd sleep a little easier with a gun in a safe by my bed if I lived there especially if my kids were in the house.

        I would love to live in a country where nobody felt the need to carry, but until the police \ justice system & rehabilitation programmes are resourced appropriately and deliver the results I respect people wanting to protect themselves and their families in their home. There are however the fruitcakes who take it too far but thats another story. Now sure pretty much everyone will jump on the bandwagon and whack the downvote button, and yes guns are crap especially in the wrong hands, but until the underlying problem is fixed I can understand why some people feel the need to protect themselves in that manner.

        In over 30 years in the UK I never had a gun pointed at me, in the US it's happened on average once a year (once because I was riding the wrong style of motorcycle?) and I rarely visit states that allow carry. It's a different world over there!

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Rampant Spaniel Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

          "......once because I was riding the wrong style of motorcycle....." Dude, I did warn you about that pink Vespa....

          1. Rampant Spaniel

            Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

            @ Matt

            Worse than a pink Vespa, it was a ninja which apparenting made me a '****ing gook' as I dared to ride it in chopper land. Apparently some people take things like that very seriously!

            The press does itself no credit trying to spin stories that show things working as they should. Like the recent story about an off duty cop who shot a loony attempting to storm a cinema with a semi auto rifle. The 'right' said the 'left' media tried to supress the story. Shit the 'left' loved that story because it was guns and gun law working. If a cinema full of people started attempting to defend themselves (with varying amounts of training, skill and gun types) in a darkened room you would end up with a lot of dead people. Somebody with extensive training and experience shot a loony, this is how it is supposed to work. Trying to spin it makes you look like mentalists who think you won't get pregnant from being raped. How they dare call it fox, foxes are smarter than them! They should rename it wilted shrub or krill.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

              "Worse than a pink Vespa, it was a ninja....." Sorry, that is probably worse than the Vespa! Joking aside, that mentality is not the sole preserve of the States. I get plenty of aggression from GTi drivers when I take out my weekend toy for a drive. It's only ended in fisticuffs once, most can be disarmed by a bit of humour, but the geniuses in question decided to have a go on a motorway petrol station forecourt right under what looked like the World's biggest CCTV camera, so I suspect their subsequent incarceration was not a great loss to society.

              "......Somebody with extensive training and experience shot a loony, this is how it is supposed to work...." Couldn't agree more, I believe gun-owners should be licensed and be trained as part of the process, that is the one major addition I would make to US gun law. Proper training includes situational assessment before pulling the trigger. What the anti-gun crowd fail to realise is we're not suggesting armed citizens instead of armed police but in addition, as even the chance of armed citizens might disuade the loonies. Adam Lanza went where he knew there were no guns to stop him, he didn't drive down to the local shooting range or the local police station for his spree.

              Anyhooooo, happy trails on the Winja. <= sorry, UK biking scene humour! ;)

              1. Rampant Spaniel

                Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                @ Matt, no worries :-) if it has 2 wheels you can make it fun ! The winja was only a rental, it was that or a gs and I still have some self respect. You can even get your knee (but not albow :-() down on a vespa. Next bike is probably a triumph explorer but the new daytona r has my eye. Roads are too bad here for the daytona though. The kwakas are alright, just a bit more unpredictable in handling over say a honda (which can be good or bad). I really miss the Lake district for fun rides though.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                  "..... I really miss the Lake district for fun rides though." I gave up on two wheels after giving myself gravel rash on Lake Road many years back. And yes, it was a dry day, no other traffic involved, and the Bluebird Cafe was packed out with people that caught my embarrassing, momentary lack of concentration ("patch of diesel, honest, not my fault", etc.). Doesn't make me any more accepting of people that have never rode insisting that motorbikes are dangerous and should be banned.

              2. pete 22

                Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                @ Matt

                "I believe gun-owners should be licensed and be trained as part of the process, that is the one major addition I would make to US gun law. Proper training includes situational assessment before pulling the trigger. "

                Oh, you mean like the CCW pistol permit? The license that pistol owners are required to obtain, through an extensive training course and background check?

                Matt, we *already* have all these safeguards. The fact that the nutter in this case is still alive is due to this fact.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Thumb Up

                  Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                  ".....you mean like the CCW pistol permit?...." Yes, but IIRC it is not a uniform requirement across America, with differing laws in many States. I would suggest a Federal law setting a minimum training requirement. After all, kids have to do driver ed before they go on the roads, the same should go for firearms, and it wouldn't breach the Second Amendment. I have yet to meet a shooter that didn't think it was a sensible idea, it was just some in the US that were worried that the anti-gun lobby would make the training and certification process so arduous and expensive as to kill the sport that way.

                  1. sisk

                    Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                    I would suggest a Federal law setting a minimum training requirement.

                    Constitutionally speaking the Federal government has no authority to make such a law, just as they have no authority to dictate requirements for a driver's license. Realistically speaking most gun owners are well versed in gun safety even without any laws requiring it. Not all, certainly, but then not all (or, I would say, even most) licensed drivers can safely handle a car either. I would guess that there are proportionally more gun owners who handle their weapons safely than drivers who handle their cars safely. Statistics would certainly back that up, given how many more fatal car accidents there are each year than accidental shootings.

                    1. Rampant Spaniel

                      Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                      Sisk is entirely correct. The states created the federal government and devolved limited powers to it. There are many areas where the federal government has no power whatsoever beyond being able to bribe states (like forcing states to adopt a speed limit or face the federal government not providing funding for highways). This is largely at odds to what most of us know from lives in constitutional monarchies and similar. I'm not sure it is any better or worse, just making a clarification for those of us who would assume the federal government largely had carte blanche. This is no small way contributed to the local motorcycle licence test being a 30 question multiple choice test and a quick wobble around some cones. Forget all the simulations cbt \ das etc in the UK. After proving you can ride a scooter around a cone you are entitled to ride a pangiale or a zx14. Not that any locals can pronounce pangiale :) Apparently it's pan-e-gail.

                      As for banning cars for causing more deaths, you'd need to look at the number of people who own a car or a gun and how often they use each. Roughly there are more guns than cars, but more car owners than gun owners. I really would not like to try and figure out but I would love to see harder road tests and harsher punishments for drunk driving. A friends wife was recently killed by a drunk driver in a truck (no licence, drunk, crossed the centerline whilst using his cellphone), the driver was out of prison before the wifes passenger was out of hospital. Apparently it's ok because he was sorry and he was just driving home from the bar which is a well known situation when it's ok to drive pissed.

                      1. Psyx
                        Thumb Down

                        Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                        "Apparently it's ok because he was sorry and he was just driving home from the bar which is a well known situation when it's ok to drive pissed."

                        Which frankly sucks.

                        "This is no small way contributed to the local motorcycle licence test..."

                        Which is - I think we can all degree - likely to cause people to get killed. I'm not trying to strip people of all their toys nor suggesting that. But for a start, how about we just legislate and license firearms at least as well as we legislate vehicles (in the UK). That way people who -drawing a parallel - who get drunk with a gun and shoot it in the air 'for fun' aren't allowed to play with them any more.

            2. John G Imrie

              GTA IV

              Weasel News, the news that's *right* for you.

            3. Intractable Potsherd

              Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

              @ Rampant Spaniel: Good points well made. The reality is that there are umpteen million guns owned by the public in the US. A reasonable percentage are in the hands of bad people. No gun-control law is going to alter those facts, at least not for decades. If I lived in the US, I would want a gun, and I would want my wife etc to have one too, purely because there are so many other people with guns.

              @ Matt Bryant: I know we have had our disagreements in the past, but you have confused me. I always though that you were American and living in the US. It seems now that, regardless of nationality, you are are in the UK. From what you have written in the past, does this mean you think large-scale gun-ownership and strong self-protection laws should be introduced in the UK? If so, why?

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: Intractable Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                ".....@ Matt Bryant: I know we have had our disagreements in the past....." Hey, what's wrong with disagreeing, as long as you can disucuss it freely, calmly, and with some humour? I long ago stopped expecting everyone to agree with me, the World would be a very boring place indeed if we all thought identically.

                ".....I always though that you were American and living in the US......" I've traveled widely for work, including often to the States, and my wife has family out there. Having actually been there means I know the trendy anti-Yank schpiel so common in the UK is completely false.

                ".....It seems now that, regardless of nationality, you are are in the UK....." Don't worry, retirement looms, and I shall be settling in the US for that. ;)

                ".....does this mean you think large-scale gun-ownership and strong self-protection laws should be introduced in the UK? If so, why?" We already have large-scale gun-ownership with very strict controls in the UK, it's just many shooters are so sick of being labelled potential child-murderers they rarely speak about their sport. I actually worked with a guy for two years without knowing he was a fellow shooter until we met at a competition! In the UK we have many restrictions on what guns we can own - no handguns, no fully-automatics, no semi-auto rifles except in .22, etc. - but that does not mean someone in your neighbourhood does not have a gun cabinet with a rifle capable of killing you at half-a-mile or a shotgun capable of killing several people quickly at shorter range. If you go look at the UK NRA website you'll probably find a gun club very close to where you live which you probably didn't even know was there. Now, think carefully - when was the last time one of those legal owners went on a spree in your neighbourhood?

                1. Intractable Potsherd

                  Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                  Thanks Matt - that clears up the confusion about where you hail from at the moment.

                  I know about the gun-clubs, and there seem to be a couple within my new area in Scotland. Indeed, there are at least two clay-pigeon ranges (is that the correct term) within hearing of my study - I might even go and try my hand at it one of these days).

                  Regarding people being reluctant to admit gun-ownership, I was recently marshalling on a rally with a chap I've met several times. After a ?accidental statement about getting frostbite whilst hunting animals in some part of central Europe, and not getting a negative response, it turned out that he is member of a gun-club who has a sideline to his main job culling wild animals. He used to be a sniper in the Forces, and feels naked without a gun nearby! In the past, I also had friends who made specialist ammunition, and had all sorts of interesting handguns in the house. No doubt, if Hungerford and Dunblane hadn't happened, I would be an owner of handguns myself - I'm not particularly interested in long-guns.

                  However, I'm not sure we are comparing like with like. Legal gun-owners with proper supervision and training (which should be *much* more than 12 hours, as it seems a CC licence requires in the USA) are hardly the problem anywhere. However, as I said in the post to Rampant Spaniel, if I lived in the US, I would want a gun - there are too many bad people with them, and arguably good ones like JEDIDIAH might decide to set his dogs or his weapons on me for looking different. One of the reasons I won't visit the US is because I would be at a disadvantage compared to the locals.

                  Most countries in the (Western) world demonstrate that gun-ownership does not equate to mass-murder (if I recall, Canada has a similar percentage of gun ownership and very small gun-death rates). The US has special problems, and such a horror of regulation that no control is practical, and avoidable deaths by both will keep happening purely because of that cultural trait.

                  1. Rampant Spaniel

                    Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                    @intractable.

                    Thanks for the kind words. I wouldn't worry too much about visiting the USA without a weapon. Hawai'i has no concealed carry, relatively low gun ownership (lots of hunting keeps it from being the lowest), and no concealed carry. Other than strapped to a police officer or when out hunting you aren't going to see a gun in Hawai'i. I also think that my not having a gun helped stop the situations I got into from escalating, although I also understand that had they escalated further a gun would have been handy. I did consider buying a gun but on balance I felt for home protection a baseball bat is effective enough and has less risk of collateral damage (again I respect my choice may be different from others :) ).

                    The whole situation is pretty screwed, i know a few canuks through work and they just cannot understand how some people won't compromise or see an kind of middle ground. Between the ultra libs who want to ban anything more lethal than a spork and the ultimate warrior types who batten down the hatches and scram the guberments coming for my guns theres very little chance of any common sense occurring. What we will get is a bunch of half hearted and mostly useless laws. The NRA and their counterparts exacerbate the situation, like some unions they push shit way too far to maintain popularity. Unfortunately normal folks don't tend to have lobby groups so we (and middle of the road compromises) get lost in the shouting.

                    As much as I respect the right to bear arms and how important it is, especially for home protection in some areas, there has to be some level of compromise about more extreme weapons. A handgun with 10 rounds is capable of doing a lot of damage, but when you have someone storming a school with a semi auto with a high capacity magazine and a pump action shotgun they are going to be able to do a lot more damage and be a lot harder to stop.

                    Only a few republicans were harmed in the making of this sense.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                      "..... The NRA and their counterparts exacerbate the situation....." But in the UK we relied on common sense and fair play, and what did it get handgun shooters? Opportunistic politicians, wanting to dodge the bullet of loon control, instead took the easy option of banning handguns from legal owners so they could tell the voters they were doing something. I was all for tightening up controls, restricting ownership and imports, but instead we got a vote-buying ban that did nothing to prevent gun crime. This year we saw another attempted assault on what shooting we have left with ridiculous demands for Olympic shooting to be replaced by Olympic laser aiming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/modern_pentathlon/8936619.stm), completely removing some of the main challenge of the shooting part of the event (judging wind drift, selecting the right ammunition, producing the right weapon design). If they want "safety and youth participation" then why don't they just make laser tag or paint balling an Olympic sport?

                      It is well past the thin-edge-of-the-wedge stage, and with the almost religious conviction of the anti-gun lobby you're going to see more and more moderates amongst gun-owners digging in their heels and falling in behind the NRA.

                      "....Only a few republicans were harmed in the making of this sense." Oh yeah, all them NRA members are nasty right-wingers, one step from Nazis, right? Like Dem senators Joe Manchin and Mark Warner, both hunters and NRA members? Come on, that dig was just the gormless sheeple's bleating.

                      1. Rampant Spaniel

                        Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                        Matt it was a joke. If you looked at what I have written I have been critical of both extremes.

                        Yes the UK went too far, but not by that much. The same solution wouldn't work in the US anyway, far higher gun ownership and far more guns in criminals hands. I don't advocate banning handguns, I think we need to create a situation where people don't feel they need a gun to be safe then the vast majority of the issues have gone away anyway.

                        We do need to look at ensuring guns are stored safely (and actually checking and making owners responsible for that), restricting the most lethal guns (primarily those with the ability to fire rapidly from a high capacity clip \ magazine ) and closing loopholes in buying weapons. We don't need to go overboard on banning weapons but we do need to drop the BS about it being down to video games.

                        There are a lot of factors contributing to gun misuse, social factors like education and a lack of parental guidance, piss poor mental healthcare for the poor etc. Just as much effort needs to be devoted to that. However the NRA won't budge and want to blame it all on movies and video games. That is what I meant. Not to mention the BS about how it's only ever gun free zones that shootings happen in, yeah fort hood is really a gun free zone. The same goes for the loony left who want to ban everything harder than shaving foam, thats a waste of time even discussing it. What do they think will happen? Gun owners will say oh ok then if they shout loud enough?

                        Both sides need to drop the BS and work on a real solution that fixes the actual problem. Responsible people with guns is not the problem. Loonies and criminals with guns is the problem.

                    2. Psyx
                      Pint

                      Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

                      "Only a few republicans were harmed in the making of this sense."

                      Well put and sensible. I'm assuming the down-vote was Matt's, because you didn't completely agree with him.

        2. Juan Inamillion
          Coat

          Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

          'I think I'd sleep a little easier with a gun in a safe by my bed...'

          "Psst! There's someone in the house!"

          "I'll get my gun from the safe.... right 24, left 15, right 32... oh wait errr... what was it again?"

          1. Rampant Spaniel

            Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law

            @Juan

            Fingerprint \ biometric bedside gun safes open very quickly, you would likely have the gun in your hands before you wiped the sleep out of your eyes :-)

            If you want to take shots at gun owners you do need to understand the situation and also realise not everybody who has a weapon thinks they're the love child of Chuck Norris and Rambo. There are a whole shitload of nutters with guns, but theres also a lot of normal, responsible people who keep a gun secured for home protection, sport or work (pest control \ livestock etc). Not everyone who owns an Audi is a tit, I'm sure there are normal Audi owners who know how to use an indicator and don't tailgate you at 120mph. Not everyone who owns a gun or supports the rights of others to do so is a loon :-)

            Theres no way in hell I would sleep with an unsecured weapon in the house. Thats how kids get shot. Way too many people have weapons that aren't secured because this is the united states of I don't have to be responsible for my own actions. It would seem (the reports I read were all vague) that is how the gunman got his mothers weapons when he shot the kids Sandy hook recently.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Rampers Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law

              "..... Not everyone who owns an Audi is a tit, I'm sure there are normal Audi owners who know how to use an indicator and don't tailgate you at 120mph....." Ah, not just me that has noticed they've migrated from Bimmers then? Audi - Angry Unthinking Driver Inside.

            2. G Olson

              Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law

              "... Not everyone who owns an Audi is a tit, I'm sure there are normal Audi owners..."

              I'll have to see some statistical evidence from a scientific study before I give that statement full credence. I think it's something that sublimates off the interior which causes this type of mentality; some people may just be naturally immune.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: G Olson Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law

                ".....I think it's something that sublimates off the interior....." Actually I think it was a very clever bit of reverse psychology in an Audi ad that ran a few years back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIQ-283wKgg). In it, you see a typical spiv tw@ test-driving an Audi (badly) intercut with scenes of his yuppy lifestyle. At the end of the ad, the tw@ gets out of the Audi and hands the keys back to the sauve salesguy with the words "Nah, it's not really my style, know what I mean". I reckon that all the BMW drivers saw it and thought that if they switched to Audis it would somehow make them look less tw@-like.....

            3. Pedigree-Pete
              Meh

              Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law

              I'll see your Audi & raise you a BMW & Merc.

        3. Tom 13

          Re: in the US it's happened on average once a year

          You must hang out with the wrong kind of people. Lived here over 40 years, occasionally driven through the wrong part of town (realized it when I saw the Lexan on the gas station attendant's booth) and never had a gun pointed at me in anger. Once or twice on shooting range until we'd properly trained an over-anxious noob, but even then it was an accidental bad movement of the gun, not a raised and pointed at me situation.

      3. Scott Terril
        Happy

        Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

        Typical lovely liberal attack with no empirical evidence to back it up. Evil white people murdering minorities with impunity. Unfortunately, actual crime statistics don't back up that assertion. Although only comprising 12% of the population, from 1980 to 2008, blacks accounted for 56.9% of all homicides, or broken down demographically:

        "Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide

        victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8

        per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per

        100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost

        8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)" -U.S. Department of Justice

        Office of Justice Programs

        Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2011, NCJ 236018

        Sorry lefties, Trayvon was the exception, not the rule. Where the victim/offender rate is identical for whites, 4.5 per 100,000. For blacks, the victimization rate (while appalling), 27.8 per 100,000, is significantly lower than the offending rate, 34.4 per 100,000. They are victims at a lower rate than they are offenders. I know. Sometimes facts suck.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Trayvon was the exception, not the rule.

          Actually he fits the rule. Pursuing dude had broken off following the Trayvon at police direction. Trayvon went after him. He pulled the piece after being attacked and shot him. Oh, and the dude only got classified as "white" because they wanted to make it about racism. If it had been a real white guy attacking the dude, he would have been reported in the media as "Hispanic" so they could still play the race card.

    5. Blake St. Claire
      Boffin

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      Yes, by all means, let's learn the vocabulary.

      Assault and battery are legal terms with precise legal definitions (in this country). Assault is fear of harmful touching. Battery is harmful touching.

      IOW you can be assaulted without being touched. Once the perp touches you, that's battery. Two different torts.

      IANAL but at least I know this much.

      1. cortland
        WTF?

        Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

        Battery, a polarizing experience; takes a few beers afterwards to get one's electrolytes into balance.

        More of ours; look up "love in a canoe" beer.

    6. Psyx
      WTF?

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      "'Mrs Land whipped out a .38 and fired three shots' implies she was carrying on her person - and a totally useless shot."

      Just because her first instinct wasn't to murder the intoxicated person who wasn't directly threatening her, it doesn't make her a bad shot. Likewise her husband's LACK of use of a firearm is commendable.

      I don't really see what the problem is with NOT killing people in response to trespass and being insane.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Psyx

        Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Shoot the guy and your a homicidal nutter (we had this discussion recently when I called you hulk for making the same assumption), dont shoot him and your a bad shot. These people were capable and ready to protect their home and instead of an escalating damage and potential harm this was resolved clearly due to the home owner being armed. And not 1 person was killed.

        This is a situation of good judgement and prepared occupants. However look down the comments for those complaining a shotgun was retrieved by the male occupant or the danger the female must have introduced by shooting and missing (ignoring the facts of the situation).

        I would say one of your statements is wrong. The husband's lack of use of a firearm is not accurate. He used it. As he should. He had no cause to pull the trigger so he didnt. He had cause to draw and aim which he did.

        Lives may be taken by the gun but lives are certainly saved by the gun.

        1. The First Dave
          Thumb Down

          Re: @Psyx

          He was clearly under no direct threat to his life, so there was no need to threaten the life of someone who was (temporarily) ill.

          1. Ted Treen
            Thumb Down

            Re: @The First Dave

            If someone is that deranged - temporarily or otherwise, you have absolutely no idea whether or not there is a direct threat to your life or that of your wife.

            And you don't risk your wife's life - or even your own - to fulfil some ultra-liberal touch-feely agenda. You can't value your wife greatly, if you do!

            1. Ted Treen
              Unhappy

              Re: @The First Dave

              Re my comment Monday 28 Jan 13:48,

              Two downvotes.

              Guess that's two Guardianistas who don't put much value on their wife...

          2. Psyx
            Stop

            Re: @Psyx

            "He was clearly under no direct threat to his life, so there was no need to threaten the life of someone who was (temporarily) ill."

            I actually agree with you, as the guy wasn't apparently any direct physical threat to others. I'm commending the fact that they didn't blow the guy away with the lethal weapons they had, rather than the fact that they had them in the first place.

            I'd have simply called the police and walked out of the back door. I don't see the point of confronting someone in that situation, because someone on either side of the equation might just end up dead. What's the point in that?

            1. JEDIDIAH
              Linux

              Re: @Psyx

              Yeah... "no direct physical threat to others". He was just running around like a nut doing insane things and running into people's houses.

              No "threat" at all.

              As far as "what's the point goes":

              A dead burglar discourages the other idiots.

              A dead burglar also helps mend your own family, helps them sleep at night, and allows them to feel safe in their own home.

              It works for the neighbors too. It feels reassuring after some burglar gets mauled by someone's dog. It helps make a high crime zone feels a little less dangerous.

              1. Intractable Potsherd

                Re: @Psyx - @ JEDIDIAH

                I'm sure you genuinely believe what you wrote. However having you, with those attitudes, as my neighbour, would not "help" me or make me feel reassured, nor feel that my family are safe.

                1. Psyx
                  Happy

                  Re: @Psyx - @ JEDIDIAH

                  "I'm sure you genuinely believe what you wrote. However having you, with those attitudes, as my neighbour, would not "help" me or make me feel reassured, nor feel that my family are safe."

                  You'd feel safer living next to a guy with a bunch of firearms who is quite happy to kill someone, so long as it's legal?

                  At least you know you're not going to get some 5.56 cruise through your walls if *I* get burgled!

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Thumb Down

                    Re: @Psyx - @ JEDIDIAH

                    "....You'd feel safer living next to a guy with a bunch of firearms who is quite happy to kill someone, so long as it's legal?...." In Atlanta I slept quite soundly in the house next door to the one of the local NRA members that instructed this course (http://www.atlantafirearmstraining.com/9.html). Please note I am not going to disclose what weapons he may have had in his home (and he had more than a water pistol), but no shootings took place and no 5.56mil came through the walls. I can't be certain but the fact he was well known locally as a firearms instructor probably reduced the chances of some local scumbag breaking in to houses in the street. Local residents did say to me that they were reassured by having him live there, so obviosuly they didn't have a problem sleeping either.

                  2. Don Jefe
                    Happy

                    @Psyx

                    You might be living next to a person with a bunch of firearms right now and you'll probably never know it. Whether or not they are legal is irrelevant, there are far, far too many guns in every country on Earth to track and the fact is that most people never realize how close they are to them all the time. The simple fact is that considering how many people own guns (legally or not) a surprisingly small group of people get hurt or killed by them.

                    Not saying this is a good thing mind, just that the genie is already out of the bottle and there's no stopping it now. Even if you banned guns, ammunition, powder, primers, cases, bullets and reloading equipment there is so much of that stuff out there already it would be several generations before there was an appreciable impact on firearms.

                    I'm from the States and I wish that we had never allowed everyone to have a gun, but I don't have a solution to the millions and millions that are out there now. They're never going to be collected, there isn't even a way to track a huge percentage of them. Hell, people bring shoulder fired SAM's and RPG's to gun buyback programs here. I guess the best solution is to retire to my bunker and not worry about it.

        2. Psyx
          Stop

          Re: @Psyx

          "Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Shoot the guy and your a homicidal nutter (we had this discussion recently when I called you hulk for making the same assumption), dont shoot him and your a bad shot."

          Ummm... if you read my post, I did not call the wife a bad shot, but instead commended them NOT shooting the guy.

          "These people were capable and ready to protect their home and instead of an escalating damage and potential harm this was resolved clearly due to the home owner being armed. And not 1 person was killed."

          I agree.... to a point. However, you cannot logically go from "They didn't shoot him" to "This was resolved due to the home owner being armed". That's faulty logic and completely incorrect.

          This could equally have been resolved by the home-owners walking out of their back door and waiting with neighbours until the police arrived. There was no way that a firearm made this particular situation either 'better' or 'worse'. Hell: The guy wasn't armed. If they *really* wanted to confront him, then they didn't even need a lethal weapon to do so. Putting this event's happy result in the hands of gun-ownership would be deceitful propaganda that fails to even bother looking at the wider picture.

          The firearm did *not* resolve this problem.

          "Lives may be taken by the gun but lives are certainly saved by the gun."

          Well yes. But on aggregate they are taken by them a hell of a lot more often. Which is precisely the issue.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Psyx

            "Ummm... if you read my post, I did not call the wife a bad shot, but instead commended them NOT shooting the guy." You didnt but others have. You asked "I don't really see what the problem is with NOT killing people in response to trespass and being insane." and I was explaining how the fight against guns cannot let facts get in the way. I actually thought that was one of your more moderate and realistic posts.

            Your comments of resolution are funny. When the nutter had no problem knocking the male occupant over and was obviously nuts enough to masturbate after being given warning shots it is clear that the pistol changed his mind about accessing the sons room and the shotgun subdued him for the police to arrive. Given to your walking out idea this guy could have been seriously harmed or caused serious harm because he was obviously not all there. Your solution would suggest that you want an easy time for criminals and believe it is right to encourage crime. Letting crimes happen oddly enough allow crime.

            As we have confirmed before, you would take out any assailant just like chuck norris and expect we can all do that. What is the physical capabilities of this family? Are they at all disabled? Old? Unfit? Or are they superhuman? Your wider picture can be seen in the fairy tale land that criminals are not dangerous and if they are are so weak anyone can overpower them.

            Simply it is funny to suggest the firearm didnt resolve this situation peacefully. Certainly takes a selective view to dream up.

            As a result your last line is irrelevant. Without the firearms to control the situation without lethal force or further harm this could have been a very bad outcome.

            1. Psyx
              WTF?

              Re: @Psyx

              "it is clear that the pistol changed his mind about accessing the sons room and the shotgun subdued him for the police to arrive."

              No: It's not. Firing the pistol caused him to masturbate frantically and far from subduing him... "Officers arrived to find the suspect "flailing around on the floor and not making any sense". After he "sucked the water from the spilled vacuum into his mouth and spat it back out", he made several attempts to escape and was tasered into submission."

              So: No. He was not subdued by the firearms. He was subdued by a taser. I think perception bias is perhaps making you take from the text what you want to see, rather than what is there.

              "Given to your walking out idea this guy could have been seriously harmed or caused serious harm because he was obviously not all there."

              It's probably safer than having him within 6 feet of a loaded firearm, and if he does come to harm, it's then not any of my business.

              "Your solution would suggest that you want an easy time for criminals and believe it is right to encourage crime. Letting crimes happen oddly enough allow crime."

              This guy was not a 'criminal'. He was clearly temporarily insane, which caused him to commit a crime. That's not 'a criminal'.

              "As we have confirmed before, you would take out any assailant just like chuck norris and expect we can all do that."

              You seem to have this serious issue with the fact that other people feel that they can avoid crime without needing to blow fucking big holes in other people. Why is that?

              You are unwilling to spend at least a few hours learning how to reduce the risk of crime to yourself and a few hundred quid on a security system, but you want to be able to spend money on a lethal weapon and expect to use that as some kind of equaliser without spending at least as much time learning how to safely use it as it would take to learn how to diffuse or avoid situations which require you to use a lethal weapon? That's wild west logic: You've fixated on the gun as the solution to the problem, instead of thinking of OTHER solutions.

              "Simply it is funny to suggest the firearm didnt resolve this situation peacefully. Certainly takes a selective view to dream up."

              No it's not. Don't be absurd and accuse me of being selective when you even ignored what the police are quoted as saying. How would walking out the back door have been worse? How would threatening with a cricket bat been worse? From WHAT THE WORDS IN THE ARTICLE ACTUALLY SAY rather than what you want them to say, it is not in any way clear that the firearms 'solved' the problem. Please show me where you believe it says they did and where the home-owners had no option but recourse to pulling out firearms.

              "Without the firearms to control the situation without lethal force or further harm this could have been a very bad outcome."

              Yes, the naked, unarmed, non-violent man could have wanked himself to death or something. Terrible. I really don't know how I'll sleep tonight without a couple of firearms in another room of my home.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Psyx Re: @Psyx

                ".....and a few hundred quid on a security system...." See, it's just like I said - all their own fault for not having twenty-foot walls, steel doors and bars on the windows. Oh, and an alarm system. Every home should have a naked-drugged-up-guy-on-your-roof alarm. Duh!

                "....This guy was not a 'criminal'. He was clearly temporarily insane, which caused him to commit a crime. That's not 'a criminal'....." Sorry, he's still a criminal if he commits a crime, even if he pleads diminished responsibility.

                "......Yes, the naked, unarmed, non-violent man could have wanked himself to death or something....." You could argue that he did not intend to commit a crime or was unlikely to have wanted to hurt anyone, but how would you know that if it was some naked stranger going berserk in your home? After all, as this incident shows (http://deadspin.com/5549389/mushroom-tea-murder-man-removes-friends-still+beating-heart), drugs make even sane and ordinary people unpredictable and potentially very dangerous. Whilst this case happily turned out to be more comic than tragic, what if he had injured Mr Land when he jumped off the roof, would Mrs Land then have been more likely to shoot to kill if her husband had been unable to help her? Could you guarantee that Bruni could not have turned violent and raped Mrs Land seeing as he obviously had a sexual urge he could not control?

                1. Psyx
                  FAIL

                  Re: Psyx @Psyx

                  "See, it's just like I said - all their own fault for not having twenty-foot walls, steel doors and bars on the windows."

                  It's not as you said at all Matt.

                  But apparently we live in a world where it is reasonable for you to believe that we should go out and buy firearms to protect ourselves, but it is totally reasonable for people to buy security systems instead. Apparently somehow that's 'hiding' and somehow too passive for you, and you want a lethal option instead.

                  You honestly believe that a deterrent and fair warning of intrusion is a worse way to spend the money than a lethal weapon? You are that willing to force a confrontation with a lethal weapon when it can be avoided?

                  "Sorry, he's still a criminal if he commits a crime, even if he pleads diminished responsibility."

                  "Whilst this case happily turned out to be more comic than tragic, what if he had injured Mr Land when he jumped off the roof, would Mrs Land then have been more likely to shoot to kill if her husband had been unable to help her? Could you guarantee that Bruni could not have turned violent and raped Mrs Land seeing as he obviously had a sexual urge he could not control?"

                  So many what if's, Matt. What if those three bullets struck someone in the next house? What if the guy shot a guy stone dead who'd had a his drink unwittingly spiked? We can make 'what if' situations up all day, but let's just stay with the facts. And the facts are that firearms did not 'solve' the problem.

                  As I said: I'd have been sat around my neighbour's house with a cup of tea waiting for the police to arrive and having a bit of a laugh about it, not waving a firearm at a nut-case and putting myself in the situation where I might need to kill someone who had the misfortune to have taken leave of his senses. If that somehow in your mind makes me less of a 'man' than you, then you seriously need to take a look at your stance towards violence and firearms.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Boffin

                    Re: Re: Psyx @Psyx

                    ".....But apparently we live in a world where it is reasonable for you to believe that we should go out and buy firearms to protect ourselves, but it is totally reasonable for people to buy security systems instead. Apparently somehow that's 'hiding' and somehow too passive for you, and you want a lethal option instead......" Why not both? I have a comprehensive security system on my house here in the UK. But here even in the UK we have examples of violent intruders killing people in their homes, so why shouldn't I have an option to defend myself? And it is not automatically a lethal result, the Lands example showed that having firearms did not immediately mean the intruder was going to be shot dead. Sorry, but you have an emotional response to the firearms issue based on your mental linking of guns with death, you cannot unlink the two and consider that introducing a firearm into any situation can result in anything other than someone being shot and killed. How you got that mental linkage is anyone's guess but it's unfortunately not rare.

                    I have met a woman in the UK that seriously wants to ban all household knives over two inches in length because she was mugged and stabbed. For her a carving knife is now irrevocably mentally linked to the violent and criminal act of trying to kill someone. The two inches rule she settled on is not even based on medical advice - there are vital organs within two inches of your skin, and even a one inch deep wound can cause you to bleed to death. In the UK we have truly awful levels of knife crime, but is just about guaranteed that every household in the UK (except hers and maybe those of veggies) has a cooking knife or knives that exceed her two inch rule and the majority of people will never face a criminal armed with a knife. Now, take a minute and think - do you agree that the government should have the right to take all those knives? You could probably get by with such a ban, but is it reasonable? If you even have to stop to think about it then you should be questioning the whole argument for banning firearms.

                    1. Psyx
                      FAIL

                      Re: Psyx @Psyx

                      "so why shouldn't I have an option to defend myself? And it is not automatically a lethal result, the Lands example showed that having firearms did not immediately mean the intruder was going to be shot dead."

                      Then buy a cricket bat, or a taser, maybe?

                      Why does it have to be a lethal weapon?

                      "Sorry, but you have an emotional response to the firearms issue based on your mental linking of guns with death, you cannot unlink the two and consider that introducing a firearm into any situation can result in anything other than someone being shot and killed. How you got that mental linkage is anyone's guess but it's unfortunately not rare."

                      Oh, that'd be me growing up with firearms in the house, shooting from age 7, working with them, and living in a few war zones. This may shatter your illusions, but it's entirely possible to be familiar with firearms, own firearms, and enjoy shooting and to still think that wide availability of firearms and firearms for personal protection in civilised nations is a mind-numbingly bad idea.

                      Introducing a firearm into any situation does not equate someone getting killed, but introducing them puts the risk there. Most situations in life are better off solved without anyone getting a gun out, or having the option to.

                      Psychologically, make people choose between flight or fight when faced with an intruder or any violent situation and most sensible people flee, given a visible exit. If there's not a visible exit and they are unarmed, and they normally try to find one and use it. Give them a firearm in the same situation and common sense goes far too easily out of the window: Even obvious other solutions get ignored in favour of confrontation. The firearm psychologically sways people towards 'fight' response.

                      That's the thing: You consider that I have a 'mental link' between firearms and people getting shot. Many people have this mental link between having a firearm in their hands and them coming out tops in any confrontation. That's a problem.

                      "If you even have to stop to think about it then you should be questioning the whole argument for banning firearms."

                      I've never said 'ban all firearms'. You've just taken my approach in this debate that the family had no need to use firearms and could just have buggered off out the back door and assumed I hate guns. Smooth work there in painting me as one of the extremists we discussed.

                      I just firmly believe that firearms for personal protection in the UK are a stupid idea that would do far more harm than good. And I think anyone even trying to say that it would result in less deaths really hasn't thought about the consequences of giving everybody out on a Saturday night the legal right to carry a sidearm.

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        Facepalm

                        Re: Psyx Re: Psyx @Psyx

                        "....Then buy a cricket bat, or a taser, maybe? Why does it have to be a lethal weapon?...." Both a Taser and a cricket bat are potentially lethal weapons, (should you beat an intruder with a bat you are likely to be arrested for GBH) and Tasers and other stunguns are illegal in the UK.

                        ".....This may shatter your illusions, but it's entirely possible to be familiar with firearms, own firearms, and enjoy shooting and to still think that wide availability of firearms and firearms for personal protection in civilised nations is a mind-numbingly bad idea...." Nope, it simply begs the question why do you think you are so exceptional that other people cannot also be trained to use firearms responsibly? Do you have an incredibly high IQ? Do you have some hypnotic power? Were you born with some unusual ability that ordinary people don't have? Bionic implants maybe? No, you were trained, simple as that. It may have been from age 7, but that's not to say you cannot train adults (in fact, it should be easier with adults). What you are assuming is that it is impossible to train the average adult as a responsible gun owner, which suggests you need to go talk to some Swiss people.

                        "....Introducing a firearm into any situation does not equate someone getting killed, but introducing them puts the risk there. Most situations in life are better off solved without anyone getting a gun out, or having the option to....." Completely agree. Unfortunately, there are also situations where you do need to defend yourself, and some times a gun will be the best option. The obvious question is, if all you need is wit and charm, why do we have armed police, even here in the UK?

                        "....Give them a firearm in the same situation and common sense goes far too easily out of the window...." Again, you are assuming that no-one else can measure up to your superhuman powers of self-control. By the way, did I mention that whole training thing earlier? That's how they stop soldiers and armed coppers in even more stressful situations just firing wildly. Strangely enough, the Lands seem to have acquired your superhuman abilities and not shot Mr Bruni, or did you remotely control them with your superhuman telepathy?

                        "....I just firmly believe that firearms for personal protection in the UK are a stupid idea that would do far more harm than good...." So you are for banning guns in the UK, maybe because we're somehow less likely to be victims of crime? Unfortunately that is not true, even for the rich in lovely areas like Henley. Ever stop to think that if George Harrison had owned a gun he may not have been stabbed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/dec/30/marktran)? Harrison and his wife were very lucky not to have been killed. Please do try and tell me you think George didn't spend any money on home security, just for a laugh!

                        "D'oh" icon. Should've been the "Fail" one, TBH.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Happy

            Re: @Psyx

            @Psyx: "This could equally have been resolved by the home-owners walking out of their back door..."

            Fantasy Island! YES!!!

            Oh here we go...everybody pretend we live in an alternate universe and pretend things work out exactly the way you _ASSUME_!. Let's leave reality behind, paying no attention to the fact it worked out beautifully there. No, everybody hit the fantasy train and pretend about things. All your assumtions will come true!

            Come on Psyx, we'll let you play Captain! You can put all your bullshit to life!

            1. Psyx
              Meh

              Re: @Psyx

              "Fantasy Island! YES!!!"

              Haven't you got a back door?

              Your fantasy island is where someone (potentially with a firearm) breaks into your house, you whip out your firearm and heroically apprehend them until the police arrive. It all goes perfectly to plan. Either nobody gets hurt, or you take down one or more armed assailants with leet skills and a handy piece of steel.

              Mine is where I get the fuck out through a window that's a yard from my bed, and I let the people being paid for it sort it out.

              Which is the bigger fantasy, really? Who is making the most assumptions? And who is making a TON of assumptions and triggering a potentially lethal confrontation. I'm making only one: That I have time to get out of a window after hearing an intruder break into my home.

    7. disgruntled yank

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      Odd, then, that "explanetory" isn't part of it.

    8. sisk

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      There are three possibilities as to why Mrs. Land missed (with the gun she no doubt retrieved from the gun safe since few people carry guns in their own homes). Possibility number one is that she wasn't even trying to hurt the guy but was only trying to get his attention. Since the most common .38 in the US is a six shot revolver I find this likely. Had she missed she would have emptied the gun trying to hit him.

      Possibility number two is that it was Mr. Lands gun and she only knew the basics of how to shoot it. Contrary to popular belief guns are hard to use, especially when there's something alive on the other end.

      Which brings us to possibility number 3: that she knew how to use the gun and was trying to hit the intruder, but subconsciously couldn't make herself shoot a human being. "Gun owner" does not mean "psychopath".

      As for the stand your ground laws, they do not allow murder. They allow for self defense, nothing else. The Trevon case was a pretty clear case of someone trying to claim self defense when they were likely the aggressor.

      Also, despite what you seem to think, not everyone who owns a gun is eager to use it on another human being. I have a 12 gauge myself for exactly this sort of situation. I chose that gun specifically because the sound of a shotgun being pumped is very distinctive and sometimes enough to scare off an intruder without a shot being fired.

    9. 4.1.3_U1

      it angle?

      Fine story, but I'm not sure what the IT angle is.

    10. peter 45

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      Before you mock 'missing with three shots', how about trying out at a pistol range. I think you will find out it is a bit harder than it looks - even for some people who trained for years*. Its not like in the Westerns you know.

      Then throw in a crazed naked freak going ape in your house and I will guarantee you will also miss.

      * I know someone who was trained to shoot every year for 20 years and never passed his test. We even tried moving the target closer and closer to him. He got so frustrated at missing he threw the gun at the target....and hit it.

    11. JEDIDIAH
      Mushroom

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      "Breaking into a home" is the sort of thing that NEVER required any sort of "stand your ground" law.

      Burglary is already considered a violent crime under common law.

      The old "your home is your castle" thing applies.

      Apparently, wherever you come from you are expected allow lunatics to run free in your home and to menace your loved ones.

    12. beep54
      Devil

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      As an 'Merican' (and Texan at that) I'd say you're spot on. Do also note that Fark.com has an entire category for weird news simply labelled "Florida".

    13. Vance P. Frickey

      Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

      And a few residents of a large island off the west coast of France are addicted to making lame generalizations about 330,000,000 people as though we all lived in Croydon...

    14. Charles Manning

      You any better at shooting?

      What a coctail of bollocks.

      Contrary to popular belief - particularly amongst the armchair militia - hitting people is not that easy even at short range. Even if you have some skill on the range, it is quite a different matter responding to real evens and a hopped up moving target.

      Why does whipping out imply she was carrying the .38? From being in bed I could get a firearm out of a gunsafe (in a different room) and loaded within 15 seconds - much faster than it would take to crack one off.

      The Trayvon Martin murder case is vastly different. In this case the person was inside the house and an obvious threat with no option to just back down and walk away.

      This has nothing at all to do with the Stand Your Ground law.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: You any better at shooting?

        15 seconds, Charles? You need to get a dawg or six.

        http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1143214

  2. Andy 115

    Apparently is was all done…

    For shits and giggles!

    1. Rob
      Coat

      Re: Apparently is was all done…

      Don't you mean shits and gizz, sorry my jackets the wipe clean one at the back there.

  3. Khaptain
    IT Angle

    The guy went a bit overboard

    This was like reading the script from "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".... It really couldn't get much more abstract.

    Imagine for a moment that the Amercians decided to shoot all of the crazy people in their country. There would be so few people left that it would actually become "civilised" again. "People that own guns can't really be classified as being civil".

    <-- IT Angle, anyone - Unless getting fueled up on Acid and cracking one off in the office is somehow IT related?

    1. Steve the Cynic

      Re: The guy went a bit overboard

      "Unless getting fueled up on Acid"

      If you asked me to select an amateur pharmaceutical product as a contributor to this case, LSD wouldn't be the one. Ethanol and/or 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl)piperidine (phencyclidine, PCP, or angel dust) would seem more likely candidates.

      1. Andrew Moore

        Re: The guy went a bit overboard

        I seem to remember that Angel Dust is the preferred tipple of your average America carney.

    2. Psyx
      Pint

      Re: The guy went a bit overboard

      "Imagine for a moment that the Amercians decided to shoot all of the crazy people in their country. There would be so few people left that it would actually become "civilised" again. "

      No dude: The only people left would be the people who had guns AND WERE CRAZY!

      1. Khaptain

        Re: The guy went a bit overboard

        @Psyx

        Sorry by wording on my behalf. I intended to make a "recursive" case whereby.

        1 : Shoot all the crazy people.

        2 : You have to be crazy to shoot people

        3 : Therefore all the shooters have to be shot too.

        Thereby reducing the population to a few Amish and some stoners....

        ( I have made the presumption that the Amish and the stoners don't own guns, are crazy or like to shoot people.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Right to bear arms

    >"Mrs Land whipped out a .38 and fired three shots, which hit the wall.

    So much for the argument that carrying a gun would prevent massacres.

    Yes I did notice that Mr. Land subdued the perp with a 12 gauge but that's not exactly the sort of gun you carry about with you.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Right to bear arms

      ".... So much for the argument that carrying a gun would prevent massacres....." Yeah, I know you really don't want to admit that warning shots would probably have scared off an ordinary intruder, and that it was only Bruni's drugged up state that stopped him realizing that he stood a good chance of getting shot if he carried on, but you carry on with your PC denial if it makes you feel better.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Right to bear arms

        Are you seriously suggesting that a woman when confronted with a drug crazed pyscho running rampage through her house would fire three warning shots?

        Some people need drugs to reach an halucinogenic state it appears that for you it is the reverse and you've stopped taking yours. Get back on the medication.

    2. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Right to bear arms

      Perhaps theres a typo in the constitution - perhaps it meant to read 'The right to beat arms'. Rhythmically - to whatever was being shown on the 72" at the time.

    3. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: Right to bear arms

      "Yes I did notice that Mr. Land subdued the perp with a 12 gauge but that's not exactly the sort of gun you carry about with you."

      Except if you read carefully, it didn't seem to. Statement from the police says that he was still frothing and that it was tasers that subdued him.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Right to bear arms

        Maybe it would be a sensible and potentially safer suggestion for people to be allowed to keep a Taser for home defence?

        Remember they have extra 'features' that make tracking where it came from, where and when it was fired easier than a firearm.

    4. Tom 13

      Re: So much for the argument that carrying a gun would prevent massacres.

      Do realize that within the last two weeks we've had two more school shooting situations? And that in both of them, the shooter was stopped by someone who was carrying and stepped in to stop the problem before we had another massacre.

  5. Alfred 2
    Unhappy

    Home Owners Defending themselves

    I dunno if this case strengthens the argument in the States for gun ownership or not.

    Can't help but think though that in the UK the phone call would have gone:

    "Police there's a drug crazed burglar in my house I'm terrified he might hurt someone."

    "All right sir, calm down, we'll have someone round in half an hour or so to give you a crime number so you can claim on the insurance."

    "I'm pointing a gun at him, if he attacks me I'll shoot."

    "Our armed response team is on its way now."

    Sound of sirens helicopter overhead much confusion the arrest of the homeowner and counselling offered to the poor victim of the terrible crime - namely the burglar.

    If I sound bitter, sorry but my wife was attacked in a supermarket by a violent shoplifter who was stopped by a member of the public. the police spent more time trying to find the 'have a go hero' so they could charge him with assault than putting together a proper case against the actual offender.

    As for the shoplifter he was given counselling, social services supported him, free legal of course, aid and help and eventually a sentence of three months probation. (He already had the proverbial record as long as your arm.)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

      Seriously bad policing that, police are often too worried about the offenders rights half the time to not care about the victim...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

        "Seriously bad policing that"

        From what I've heard of the way police work goes over there it's par for the course. It's not that long ago that a guy got an insanely long sentence for shooting someone who was trying to bash in his skull at the time. Apparently he was charged with having the gun and murder, when his only other option was to allow himself to be killed.

    2. Nuke
      Holmes

      @Alfred 2 - Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

      Wrote :- " in the UK the phone call would have gone: "All right sir, calm down, we'll have someone round in half an hour or so to give you a crime number so you can claim on the insurance."

      You have obviously never have phoned the police in such a situation. I and a neighbour phoned the police when a break-in was openly going on a few doors away. The police arrived THREE DAYS later, a friendly "neighbourhood" copper who drank a nice cup of tea . Both on the phone and when they arrived the police were more interested in me, like what size socks I wore, than in the burgulary.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

        In the UK there appears to be a whole class of people who are essentially of absolutely no value whatsoever. This group knows all about their rights and absolutely nothing of their responsibilities. Fully conversant with criminal law (after personal exposure) no doubt the shoplifter above would have denied all charges but counter accused the law abiding member of the public who intervened.

        These being the self same people who understand that they have a ‘right’ to

        Legal aid

        JSA

        Disability benefit

        Housing benefit

        Child Benefit

        What they don’t understand is that these rights are paid for and provided to them by the law abiding members of society. I guess the question that I ask is will this class of people either ever understand this fundamental responsibility, or are they pretty much going to be oxygen thieves from cradle to grave.

        As a final argument a solicitor who I asked once about why he had given up criminal law replied ‘I defended a generation of people, then I defended the children, I can’t bring myself to defend the Grand Children’.

        So yes back to the arguments for gun ownership. Answering my own question above what we have in the UK is a whole group that are basically a waste of time and effort. Whereas at least in the US the law abiding gun owners occasionally and probably at higher frequency than the rest of the population, cull this group.

        This to me looks like in the US at least something is being done about this category of people. In effect the lax gun ownership rules will be affecting a Darwinian natural selection on the US of A's Jeremy Kyle generation.

        1. Chris Rowland

          Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

          Titus Technophobe: Your characterization of disabled people as "oxygen thieves" is evil. In fact it isn't just your posts, it is you. You are evil. You are scum, not fit to lick shit off my shoes. You are totally without any sort of redeeming features Your very existence is an offence against any civilized society.

          This also applies to the people who up voted your reprehensible post, also evil scum.

          I hope there is a hell for you to burn in for eternity.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Down

            @Chris

            Nope you have misread the context of my post. I have not characterised all disabled people, further than that I haven't really characterised any disabled people as Oxygen thieves I merely refer to folks who where described in the first paragraph who might then feel they were entitled to disability benefit.

            The people I describe in the first paragraph certainly wouldn't be disabled but presumably might be able fake the symptoms sufficiently to qualify.

          2. Dan Paul
            Devil

            Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

            For the record, there are far too many people posting here who seem willing to pull the trigger on outright hate, threatening violence at gunowners or those who agree with them. Those people are just one of the reasons why I own guns. Your intolerance is JUST as damning as that of the Nazi collaberating French or Germans.

            Titus Techniphobe's characterization was not of Disabled people as Oxygen Thieves but one of a multi-generational culture of a type of person who seems to think they can steal anything that's not welded down and get away with it, especially those who have learned to "work the system" no doubt a skill learned while cooling one's heels in the slammer or at the feet of a 21st century Fagan.

            The only reason why that person would be "disabled" is due to some "injury" that they supposedly "suffered" on the steps of a public building and milked out a lovely "settlement". Obviously they can't hold down a real job, so they get all the remaining benefits they "deserve". Trouble is, that he seems to have a second career as a second story burglar (funny how that bad back that "disabled" him does not hurt all the time). However, his lawyer gets him off since it's "obvious" that poor guy is too "disabled' to have pulled the job.

            Perhaps the poor man is disabled because he fell off the roof of some rich mans house and sued because having an easily climable downspout was an "attractive nuisance" that "coaxed" him into climbing up on the roof (so he could rob the place blind).

            Perhaps Titus' characterization bothers you so because he hit so close to the mark?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Thumb Down

              Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

              I am reminded of that all time classic of UK justice? Tony Martin who was not only imprisoned for shooting a couple of burglars. But the subsequently sued by one of the miscreants for 'loss of earnings'.

              Rather than trying to help Mr Martin the UK justice system provided the burglar with at least £5000 of legal aid. Justice eventually prevailed in the this instance when The Sun published photo's of the 'Plaintiff' cycling and climbing with little apparent difficulty suggesting that his injuries were not as serious as had been claimed.

              This all seems wrong to me .....

              1. PatientOne

                Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

                @Titus

                Mr Martin shot 2 intruders with an illegally held pump action shotgun. His claim at self defense was dismissed when forensic evidence showed he had not shot down the stairs at the burglars, but had been downstairs and shot as they broke into the house, suggesting he had been lying in wait.

                He was charged and convicted of murder as he shot 3 times: Once as they entered the house and twice as they fled. One died of wounds sustained to the back, indicating he was fleeing at the time, which also denies 'self defense'. This was later dropped to manslaughter as it was argued he did not intend to kill: The shotgun was loaded with 'bird shot'.

                The surviving intruder tried to sue Mr Martin claiming loss of earnings as he was not able to work. This was thrown out of court, partly because he was witnessed going about his daily life without problem, and partly because there had been no financial loss (he was unemployed).

                The only thing 'wrong' in all of this was the legal aid being offered without first ascertaining that there was a valid case, and/or was not reclaimed when it turned out there was not.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  WTF?

                  @PatientOne

                  You don’t find anything wrong with the concept that somebody injured as a consequence of criminal activities should be in any way shape or form be eligible for compensation?

                  1. JEDIDIAH
                    Mushroom

                    Re: @PatientOne

                    I find it absurd that someone could be accused of murder for killing a home intruder. It doesn't matter what the extenuating circumstances are. If they are in your house, they should expect to end up DEAD. The most that poor fellow should have been on the hook for was a weapons charge for having the illegal gun.

                    Puts a whole new spin on Clockwork Orange for me.

                  2. PatientOne

                    Re: @PatientOne

                    @Titus

                    I disagree with criminals being able to claim compensation for injuries sustained while they were undertaking a criminal act, yes. However, he was fraudulently claiming legal aid for a disability he wasn't suffering and for losses he hadn't suffered. That should have been checked before legal aid was offered: How the injuries were sustained and any due compensation would have been for the courts to decide, not the legal aid people.

                2. Ted Treen
                  Mushroom

                  Re: @loads - Argument for gun ownership

                  If you want a valid argument for gun ownership by the law-abiding population, all you need to do is look at the Palace of Westminster.

                  There's around 650 damn good reasons why we should be armed...

              2. Psyx
                Stop

                Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

                "I am reminded of that all time classic of UK justice? Tony Martin who was not only imprisoned for shooting a couple of burglars. But the subsequently sued by one of the miscreants for 'loss of earnings'."

                Dude: He ambushed them with an illegal firearm and shot them without warning, and then shot one of them in the back as he was running away.

                Don't even try to condone that as legitimate self-defence. I don't condone the suing, but I can't condone just gunning down people in cold blood in response to house-breaking.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  WTF?

                  Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

                  Nah I don't condone Mr Martin gunning them down. I think just maybe the evidence was open to interpretation, and in the States he wouldn't have been charged. Bear in mind his sentence was eventually reduced to man slaughter.

                  The bit that really astonished me was that a 'habitually criminal' was provided with legal aid to pursue Mr Martin for loss of earnings. So because he couldn't go and break into anybody else house for a while you think he should have got a pay off?

                  1. Psyx
                    Stop

                    Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

                    "Nah I don't condone Mr Martin gunning them down. I think just maybe the evidence was open to interpretation"

                    Is that the shotgun pellets in the guy's BACK?

                    "and in the States he wouldn't have been charged."

                    For backshooting a guy running, unarmed away from you? I don't think so. Bear in mind that we DO have plenty of laws that allow people to use proportionate defence in their own homes. We are not a limp-wristed country that does not allow us any measure of defence. But even under are rules, what he did (set traps, waited in ambush with an illegal weapon, issued no warning, shot someone in the back...) crossed a legal line by a wide margin.

                    "The bit that really astonished me was that a 'habitually criminal' was provided with legal aid to pursue Mr Martin for loss of earnings. So because he couldn't go and break into anybody else house for a while you think he should have got a pay off?"

                    I just said that I didn't agree with the suing. So no: I don't. As I said already.

            2. Psyx
              FAIL

              Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

              "Your intolerance is JUST as damning as that of the Nazi collaberating French or Germans."

              Godwins. You lose.

        2. Tom 7 Silver badge

          Re: @Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership

          You missed Quantitative Easing off that list.

      2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: @Alfred 2 - Home Owners Defending themselves

        That's your experience. We had a persistant drunk harrassing the woman over the road and the cops were pretty good, turning up every time I called (which was a lot) within a few minutes. LIkewise for a car break-in that happened one night. Clearly not your experience, but from my POV they seemed to do a pretty good job actually, I was pleasantly surprised and had to shelve some of my fuck-the-police hangups from my student days.

        And just for the record, what size socks do you wear?

      3. PatientOne

        Re: @Alfred 2 - Home Owners Defending themselves

        @Nuke

        Okay, you got me beat there: I had to wait 2 days for the police to arrive after I was assaulted outside my house. Apparently they were all busy trying to catch a purse thief who was working the area.

    3. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

      "Can't help but think though that in the UK the phone call would have gone:"

      "Police there's a drug crazed burglar in my house I'm terrified he might hurt someone."

      How about:

      All right Sir, clam down, get your family and yourself out of the back door, and we'll get a car over. Then he can only hurt himself and nobody gets shot.

      I really don't know why people's reaction when their house has an insane or armed intruder in it is either to foolishly stand around waiting for them to burst in, or to engage in a lethal confrontation when they have a perfectly good back door!

      I mean: We don't hang around to try to deal with a burst gas main or a blazing inferno, do we?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Psyx

        Criminals must love you and insurance companies hate you. I am frequently amazed at how it can be seen as a good thing to encourage criminals and let them commit all the crime they want. As the police often dont catch them and if they do the criminal is allowed out I wonder if you want a crime state?

        Worse than that a persons life is important to them. People work hard to build a life, so they could be understandably upset if some nutter wants to ruin it for them. A burst gas main or blazing inferno is responded to as soon as possible. Do the police do that (the answer is an absolute no). If they eventually turn up and your life is in ruins what use are they? They cant be everywhere and dont know where the criminals are, so you think its a good idea to let criminals do all they please.

        This is before considering this nutter isnt attacking them (he allegedly did) or that the son wasnt home (an unknown) who may not have been able to get out without passing the potentially harmful nutter. Your dream scenario often is only a dream. This is why being prepared and capable is important.

        As I have read plenty 'they dont break into my home I have a gun. They go next door instead'.

        1. Psyx
          Holmes

          Re: @Psyx

          "Criminals must love you and insurance companies hate you. I am frequently amazed at how it can be seen as a good thing to encourage criminals and let them commit all the crime they want. As the police often dont catch them and if they do the criminal is allowed out I wonder if you want a crime state?"

          I pay for insurance. So why the hell would I get involved in a lethal firefight over a television? You can't honestly tell me that you believe we should own firearms out of respect for our insurance companies.

          I really don't understand why you assume that not having a lethal weapon somewhere in the house makes someone a crime magnate. It clearly does not.

          Getting the hell out of an invaded house and calling the police is not 'encouraging' a criminal.

          "People work hard to build a life, so they could be understandably upset if some nutter wants to ruin it for them."

          Again: House insurance.

          And if you really believe that breaking a TV or a bit of jizz on your carpet 'ruins' your life, I think you need to take a good look at your priorities!

          Likewise, responding to even theft or burglary by shooting someone is insanely disproportionate.

          "A burst gas main or blazing inferno is responded to as soon as possible. Do the police do that (the answer is an absolute no). If they eventually turn up and your life is in ruins what use are they? They cant be everywhere and dont know where the criminals are, so you think its a good idea to let criminals do all they please."

          You think they stop for burgers on the way to home invasion calls? I'm afraid I can't do anything about your lack of faith and preconceptions in the police. I'm not big fans of their either, but they are not wilfully shit when people are under threat.

          And plenty of burglars get caught. My last one did.

          " Your dream scenario often is only a dream."

          So is yours. Except yours has a firearm in it. That makes it a dream where someone can die, which isn't better than mine at all.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Psyx Re: Home Owners Defending themselves

        "..... get your family and yourself out of the back door, and we'll get a car over....." All of which assumes you actually can get your family out without them coming to harm, and that the intruder won't follow you out to the car, or even that the intruder will stand idly by whilst you call the police. Reality doesn't always play out that way.

        1. Psyx
          FAIL

          Re: Psyx Home Owners Defending themselves

          "All of which assumes you actually can get your family out without them coming to harm, and that the intruder won't follow you out to the car, or even that the intruder will stand idly by whilst you call the police. Reality doesn't always play out that way."

          Where as you assume that the criminal is not between you and your guns, that you can get them to hand, that the intruder doesn't stop you, and that you can use it without there being an issue.

          All told, my assumptions are far less in extent than your own, Matt.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Psyx 17:59

            If the criminal is between you and your gun he is not between you and the exit. If the criminal is between you and the exit he is not between you and your gun. Unless you store your gun at the door which is asking for it.

            Your assumption of always having an exit is a dream most dont have. Not in the real world.

            1. Psyx
              Holmes

              Re: Psyx 17:59

              "If the criminal is between you and your gun he is not between you and the exit. If the criminal is between you and the exit he is not between you and your gun. Unless you store your gun at the door which is asking for it.

              Your assumption of always having an exit is a dream most dont have. Not in the real world."

              What the hell are you on about?

              Don't you people have two doors and a bedroom window?

              Unless someone is actually in my bedroom, I have an exit. And if I spent the money on an alarm system rather than a firearm, I'm always going to have enough notice to use that exit.

              Plus you are assuming that someone is coming into my house to kill me. Last I heard, burglars tend to stay downstairs. Mind you: That's burglas in THIS country, where they don't have guns. I guess yours are more dangerous *because they can get guns so easily*

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @Psyx 10:26

                "Don't you people have two doors and a bedroom window?" Finally your dream assumption shattered. No. I have windows that you would not climb out of as it would be a painful landing at best even with a rope/ladder, and 1 door. If the place goes up in flames I will be in pain on landing but as for actual exits I have 1 door. If someone is breaking into my home they come through that door. They come towards my living room I have easy access to the kitchen with easy access to knives. If I am in the bedroom I have access to my firearms. In my bathroom I am fairly fucked but the door has a lock (wouldnt take much to get through). Also the time to get from the front door to the end of either room is few seconds. I would have to move the blinds, open the stiff windows, get something to climb down with and then squeeze out (I am pretty tall). The criminal would have to be very low mobility for me to have a chance to get out. And unlike you I dont think I can dodge bullets and the area I live was avoided by police (even when called) until a few months ago.

                "Plus you are assuming that someone is coming into my house to kill me. Last I heard, burglars tend to stay downstairs. Mind you: That's burglas in THIS country, where they don't have guns. I guess yours are more dangerous *because they can get guns so easily*" again your assumptions are wrong (not even debatable). I live in a flat. Enter my flat and there are no exits left. Burglars want to take stuff. They are pretty committed to the act once in. The security on the place is not in my control and we have regular problems due to lack of policing and the security gates wont be fixed because they keep being broken (by the people the police avoid).

                Across the road is a pub. Recently (few month ago) the landlady was stabbed. There have been others in the area too. Regular fights and abuse is the norm and the kids freely smash bottles in the road and throw things at house windows.

                Cmon hulk, lets see you live out here. Lets see you take regular abuse living where the huge builder wont go near the pub outside. And there are worse areas in this city in england.

                1. Psyx
                  FAIL

                  Re: @Psyx 10:26

                  "No. I have windows that you would not climb out of as it would be a painful landing at best even with a rope/ladder, and 1 door. If the place goes up in flames I will be in pain on landing "

                  Then perhaps you should get a rope ladder. And a lock on the bedroom door.

                  After all: If you seriously want a firearm for personal protection, then why aren't you planning for other unlikely emergency situations. If you prepare for violent confrontation on the off-chance, then not taking measures against other events just looks like you 'want' a firearm and are then justifying it.

                  "Burglars want to take stuff. They are pretty committed to the act once in."

                  No they aren't. They're only committed to violence if you lock them in. Give them an exit and put a light on and they will generally run. They want 'stuff' not a confrontation. They can go and get stuff elsewhere. Granted it's not a catch-all, but it's true in the majority of situations.

                  You are enormously confrontational in your entire outlook. You have this idea that a firearm will solve your protection worries and yet seem really derisive of anyone taking *other* measures to protect themselves. I'm 'hulk' and can 'dodge bullets' because I've spent a bit of time learning how to look after myself according to you, yet you think you can pull a pistol on someone mugging you with a firearm and blow them away before they pull a trigger? Seriously?

                  "Cmon hulk, lets see you live out here."

                  Thanks, but I've lived in enough terminally dangerous dumps. I take pleasure in not waking up to sporadic gunfire.

                  You think your neighbourhood would be safer if you had a sidearm and concealed carry permit?

                  Now imagine every one of those scum in that pub opposite, every would-be mugger and every burglar having a firearm too. Tell me how your world is safer than mine?

                  Just answer that one, please. Instead of just attacking other people's opinions, let's hear you defend your own.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Stop

                    Re: Psyx Re: @Psyx 10:26

                    "....You have this idea that a firearm will solve your protection worries and yet seem really derisive of anyone taking *other* measures to protect themselves...." Who said that? A gun will give more options, no-one is advocating getting a gun and then leaving your doors unlocked. No-one is saying get a gun and then encourage crackheads to break in, so quit that rubbish. Anyone getting a gun is simply ADDING to their security arrangements, just like someone that gets a dog. I also don't recall anyone saying here that they would buy a gun and not invest in an extinguisher, fire blanket or fire escape, but maybe you missed that when you were hurrying to defend your opinions?

                    "....You think your neighbourhood would be safer if you had a sidearm and concealed carry permit? Now imagine every one of those scum in that pub opposite, every would-be mugger and every burglar having a firearm too. Tell me how your world is safer than mine? Just answer that one, please....." Easy - most muggers, burglars and the like are career criminals with records, making them inelligible for a permit or even a shotgun licence. Those criminals already given to breaking the law won't give a fudge and will carry a gun anyway, permit or not, as shown by the case of the UK, Washington DC, Chicago, etc. So letting the homeowner also have a weapon at least puts them back on equal terms.

                    A gun does not remove the possibility of break-ins or even that you will survive a shoot-out, but it does provide the option of at least defending yourself, and it may make you more confident should you be trapped and unable to defend yourself otherwise against an intruder that is simply bigger and stronger. And sometimes an armed homeowner does have proper security, like locked doors, increased police presence in the area, and still has to shoot an intruder determined to hurt them (http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/11/03/woman-shoots-rapist-who-came-back-to-rape-her-for-a-second-time/). Read that link and then stop to think if it had been Preyer breaking into your home to attack your wife, mother, sister, daughter - anyone you actually care about more than Preyer's "rights". Maybe it would help if you knew the first time Preyer raped the woman he told her that if she told the cops - which she did - he would return to "get her". Yeah, I'm sure "backing out the door" was an immensely better option - not!

                    Hey, no "Fail" icon to upset you, just a "Stop this nonsense forthwith", as I'm afriad you are talking utter nonsense.

                    1. Psyx
                      FAIL

                      Re: Psyx @Psyx 10:26

                      "Who said that?"

                      The Anon guy who keeps calling me Hulk et al on the basis that I'm willing to defend myself by breaking someone's elbow when I run out of other options, and yet who seems to think that a concealed handgun is the solution to being mugged by an armed assailant at point-blank range in a dark alley. Apparently anything other than a firearm for defence is making too many assumptions for him or is somehow not macho enough or something. There is no way in hell I'd allow someone with such a blinkered view towards solving confrontation a license if it was down to me. You I'd actually consider, despite the fact I think your attitude generally sucks.

                      "No-one is saying get a gun and then encourage crackheads to break in, so quit that rubbish. Anyone getting a gun is simply ADDING to their security arrangements"

                      Ok then, so then it's reasonable to not allow anyone a firearm in the home until they have a security system and approved locks? There: That's a sensible minimum licensing requirement, for a start. That'd be on my requirements list:

                      "I want a gun to protect yourself from burglars"

                      "Have you got a burglar alarm?"

                      "No"

                      "Come back when you have considered other options for home safety other than shooting people"

                      "Those criminals already given to breaking the law won't give a fudge and will carry a gun anyway."

                      We're in the UK, Matt. Most criminals in the UK have never even handled a firearm.

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        Thumb Down

                        Re: Psyx Re: Psyx @Psyx 10:26

                        "....who seems to think that a concealed handgun is the solution to being mugged by an armed assailant at point-blank range in a dark alley....." I'm not advocating that a handgun will be the solution for all situations, but it will help you in some where not having a handgun could be terminal. If, for example, I go loopy and decide to camp out in the local tower with a (perfectly legal in the UK) Remington 700, the chap in the street with a concealed handgun is going to be just as dead as you, regardless of your superpowers. But, in my loopy state and unreasonable state, should I decide to enter your homes with the 700, he is going to stand a better chance than you of getting out of that shorter range confrontation alive. Please note that running out the back door is not going to beat a bullet doing about 1900mph, and with five rounds in the mag I will be able to work the bolt and take care of your wife long before she gets out of range too.

                        "....Ok then, so then it's reasonable to not allow anyone a firearm in the home until they have a security system and approved locks?...." In the UK I have to have a secure home and an approved, fixed gun cabinet before I can apply for a weapon. They come and check as well as talking to you. I see nothing wrong with that approach being taken in the US too, it reduces the chances of weapons being stolen.

                        "...."I want a gun to protect yourself from burglars"....." Actually, in the UK I can specify several reasons for wanting a weapon, such as target shooting for sport or competition, hunting (including deer stalking), and collecting. Most gun clubs will warn you off telling the coppers you want a weapon for home protection as they will automatically assume you are a paranoid loon. In the old days, if you wanted a handgun for home defence, you said it was for military-class competition shooting.

                        "....We're in the UK, Matt. Most criminals in the UK have never even handled a firearm." Oh dear, best you don't go search on Youtube for "operation trident gun crime" - it's pretty grim, including a five-year-old girl shot in Brixton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRy131WV5nQ). Or this vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr20MX-oI8Q) - just ignoring the AK and Uzi shown, check about 30 seconds in the boxes of handguns seized in just one month! I'm told that the other large cities like Manchester are not far behind. I suggest you take your head out of the sand as that won't stop a bullet either.

                        1. Psyx
                          FAIL

                          Re: Psyx Psyx @Psyx 10:26

                          "with five rounds in the mag I will be able to work the bolt and take care of your wife long before she gets out of range too."

                          I can deal with you throwing insults at me. But that's so not cool, Matt. In fact, it's fucking offensive. Don't bring other people's families into your petty squabbles and imaginary situations. It's pathetic.

                          "In the UK I have to have a secure home and an approved, fixed gun cabinet before I can apply for a weapon. They come and check as well as talking to you. "

                          Yes, I know that, thanks. /rolleyes.

                          Except now they seem to send non-police around, having contracted out the work. At least around here.

                          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                            Thumb Down

                            Re: Re: Psyx Psyx @Psyx 10:26

                            "I can deal with you throwing insults at me. But that's so not cool, Matt. In fact, it's fucking offensive. Don't bring other people's families into your petty squabbles and imaginary situations. It's pathetic....." Really? Did it upset you to consider your wife dying violently? Is it different when it is someone you care about? But you said it could never happen, so why so upset? And it was you that said in the Lands case you would have concentrated on getting your wife and then yourself out of the house rather than confronting Bruni with a gun. I'm simply using a new scenario to point out that relying on escape could result in you and your wife dying, and that's a scenario using a weapon currently legal here in the UK. Congratulations, you obviously feel strongly about your wife, but do you feel strongly enough about protecting her that you cannot consider ever shooting an armed intruder?

                            Take our scenario - I'm doing a Bruni only I'm off my head and pointing a rifle at your wife - only this time you do have a firearm which you obviously know how to use, do you risk taking the chance I won't shoot her or do you pull the trigger? Don't think about it for too long, you could have literally seconds to decide if that, or you could be leaving it too late. BANG! Oops, too late! So, now I have shot your wife, I still have four rounds in the mag and I'm working the bolt, do you want to reason with me, try walking out the back door or diving out the window, or do you pull the trigger? Got any kids? Don't worry, the family pet may make it out alive if the armed response team get there in time. Come on, admit it, you already know the answer from your own stated experience - given the right provocation, everyone will eventually reach the point where they will pull the trigger, no matter their stated moral outlook. The only situation where they never will is when they don't have a trigger to pull, because they don't have a firearm.

                      2. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        @Psyx 17:43

                        I call your hulk because you think you can take on any violent situation which you cant run from. You think you can beat up whatever attacker comes your way, and you may be right, unless the attacker is bigger/stronger/better trained than you. Then your buggered. You have the confidence in your scenario's because they always lean in your favour. You then assume this ideal fantasy land of fluffy criminals and many exits with no harm ever coming to anyone. When I explained the reality that there is no exit where I live and you cant rely on the police you didnt offer a solution. You assume very wrongly that your rope ladder idea is viable even though I already explained it wasnt.

                        You might be able to break any muggers arm hulk, but what about the majority of people? You are the one assuming some fantasy land where everything goes your way. You dont believe harm can come to anyone because there is always some option you dream up regardless of reality. You also assume a gun for self defence automatically requires firing or even a killing shot. You ignore reality (read this article!). You cry when you think I call you names but you then call me (e.g. "Apparently anything other than a firearm for defence is making too many assumptions for him or is somehow not macho enough or something") because you cannot solve the problem I offer. These are not assumptions about your beliefs, these are your comments. You sound the macho hard man who can handle any situation by breaking arms and leaving through non-existent and non-viable exits. You claim your security system (an alarm?) is enough to save you from someone out of their mind and highly unpredictable. Your the one saying hilarious but unrealistic things. And your the one assuming those who wish to prepare (as we prepare for a fire, etc) are in the wrong. After telling us that we surely prepare for other incidents like a fire (I have an extinguisher to help with the limited exits.

                        "Ok then, so then it's reasonable to not allow anyone a firearm in the home until they have a security system and approved locks? There: That's a sensible minimum licensing requirement, for a start. That'd be on my requirements list:" Why not. Sensible requirements. As I understand it the police do this in the UK already if you want to own guns. A gun is not the security solution, its part of it. Its not to kill anyone who gets into your house, its to protect you and your families life and give you the option when all others run out.

                        "We're in the UK, Matt. Most criminals in the UK have never even handled a firearm." Yet they are damn good with knives and blunt objects. Also criminals tend to pick on easier targets. Your hulk like qualities probably save you some trouble. For the majority we are not hulk like.

                        1. Psyx
                          FAIL

                          Re: @Psyx 17:43

                          "I call your hulk because you think you can take on any violent situation which you cant run from. "

                          No I don't. Hell: You're not even debating gun control any more, just making diversionary insults and erecting rows of straw men.

                          "You cry when you think I call you names but you then "

                          Damn right I'll call you a name back after you do it about a dozen times. You didn't like what I was saying, so you resorted to names out of spite. Basically, you just want a firearm of your own. That's pretty much what it comes down to, and you've used cognitive bias to construct reasoning around it, and nothing will change your mind.

                          Me: I've owned firearms, carried and used them, and generally got over 'needing' them in my life when I saw that a well-armed society is an unpleasant one. Hopefully you'll come to the same realisation one day. But I doubt it, because apparently no other solution will ever be good enough for you.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            @Psyx 14:59

                            Its ok dude, we know you cant answer the question, instead you rewrite under the assumption your stronger than the attacker or have a way out. We know you cant answer for the actual situations of violent crime, I was just interested to see if you could get past the dream situation you imagine and assess the real world (my flat for example). Its not insults and straw men. Its reality vs your assumption of always being stronger (which doesnt apply to most of the country). The scenario is not a straw man, its life for many and its the regular violent crimes.

                            "Damn right I'll call you a name back after you do it about a dozen times." Then dont cry when I do it back to you. I ask you a question, you rewrite the question or repeat a wrong answer then blame me for being homicidal, wanting to shoot someone, or thinking a gun is macho. You say its a good idea to prepare for fire, yet cry against the same principal in home security. I like your statement of bias when you failed to answer the questions put to you without huge rewrites to a fictional land of exits and no violent crime. Even to the most hilarious suggestions of rope ladders even when it wouldnt work. Simply- "you've used cognitive bias to construct reasoning around it, and nothing will change your mind.". Read your statement and weep, or learn preferably.

                            "Me: I've owned firearms, carried and used them, and generally got over 'needing' them in my life when I saw that a well-armed society is an unpleasant one. Hopefully you'll come to the same realisation one day. But I doubt it, because apparently no other solution will ever be good enough for you." Maybe you have but you do sound very unrealistic in your view of the world or very sheltered. Good for you, violence is not good. But to assume everyone has such privileged position is unrealistic. Maybe you lived in warzones or whatever scared you, but your thinking of yourself not victims. Reminds me of (Matts?) comment about the fear of knives. My realisation is violence happens. If you can get out then good. If you cant then you need help. When nobody can help you hope they call the police. When the police wont come what can you do? Your idea that martial arts solves all is a discredited statement and no intelligent person would assume it would work for the majority in the country. The definition by itself being that the majority would be less capable.

                            Solutions are good. You have offered some valid ones but it requires a lot of conditions. You couldnt provide one in my situation and I am mobile and healthy.

                            I also notice you dont mention the agreement we have of house security to have firearms at home. Especially since thats the law here anyway. Didnt you know that as a gun owner/user? And you needed your gun? Wow. Was it love? I have yet to hear anyone at the ranges here say anything like that. Is this an insight to your bias?

                          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                            Facepalm

                            Re: Re: @Psyx 17:43

                            ".....Me: I've owned firearms, carried and used them, and generally got over 'needing' them in my life when I saw that a well-armed society is an unpleasant one....." OK, I admit I don't particularly rate a trip to Switzerland as a barrel of laughs, but now you're just blanket insulting a whole country?

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    @Psyx 12:05

                    I dont need a rope ladder. I have a fire extinguisher so I do prepare. This still offers NO solution if someone breaks in because they would be on me before I could get out. Me and my partner. Or do you think I should negotiate our exit down the rope with the nice fluffy criminal? Be real. As for the door, I rent and it has no lock. A fire wouldnt respect a lock and a criminal would break the door easy enough if it had one.

                    Fact is I am prepared for events, except an armed/over aggressive intruder. No security system would fix this and I rent so have no control over the security system. I laugh at your dream world view because its wrong. I live in the real world your dream does not account for. And you would prefer me dead to being able to protect my home and family. As for wanting firearms, I use them. However a target rifle is useless in a flat and is certainly excessive and less threatening.

                    "No they aren't. They're only committed to violence if you lock them in. Give them an exit and put a light on and they will generally run." sorry dude but your talking bull. This article alone wipes out this statement and shows you either lying or ignorant. Assuming this guy is on drugs, that does not bode well as such is done in my area. The police raided a house next to the pub (2 doors down) that grew and supplied pot to the locals. They also do harder stuff but as I said the police dont really police our area. To think a criminal is only criminal as long as he hurts nobody flies in the face of fact.

                    You say I am confrontational but you assume no confrontation will happen. You then assume your training in self defence will save you, which assumes your not attacked by someone bigger/stronger/better trained than you. Dumb assumptions that dont work as someone is always better. Yet the presence of the gun has saved many lives (without shooting). Also it is better to end the attackers life than them take yours (none of your poor excuse get outs here pls) which is often enough knowledge to make an attacker back off. Look back to the comments I made on equalizing. Your way ensures criminals win. Almost certain with little risk.

                    "You think your neighbourhood would be safer if you had a sidearm and concealed carry permit?" I would be safer. Without doubt. As would the other residents stuck here.

                    "Now imagine every one of those scum in that pub opposite, every would-be mugger and every burglar having a firearm too. Tell me how your world is safer than mine?" because right now people are stabbed, injured, assualted, beaten, harrassed, etc because the bigger, drugged up, violent muppet has nothing to fear. They can stab people with onlookers being totally helpless. The victims having no defence nor support by the onlookers. Your way the bigger wins and they do so often the police hide. My way the police are armed and the law abiding, meaning they have a chance. While a criminal may be armed, he is not the only one.

                    1. Psyx
                      FAIL

                      Re: @Psyx 12:05

                      "the bigger, drugged up, violent muppet has nothing to fear."

                      No, and he won't have anything to fear if him and his three mates have drawn weapons, either. Once again we're back to you thinking that a concealed weapon is any use in such a situation.

                      "As for wanting firearms, I use them. However a target rifle is useless in a flat and is certainly excessive and less threatening."

                      So... your landlord doesn't let you put a bolt on your bedroom door, but lets you have a gun safe bolted to the floor?

                      "You then assume your training in self defence will save you, which assumes your not attacked by someone bigger/stronger/better trained than you."

                      "Dumb assumptions that dont work as someone is always better."

                      Like yours that you can out-draw a mugger with a gun pointed at you, you mean? Which part of "You are making more assumptions by assuming that you can protect yourself with a firearm than I am by thinking I can run away" is not sinking in?

                      "Yet the presence of the gun has saved many lives (without shooting). Also it is better to end the attackers life than them take yours "

                      Unfortunately, the very presence of all those firearms in society does more harm than good. Simple maths dictates the lesser of the evils takes priority. If that means that some poor bastard gets killed by a burglar to save five kids shooting themselves or someone else each year with daddy's pistol, then that - to me- is the way it goes.

                      "(none of your poor excuse get outs here pls)"

                      And yeah: I'd pull the trigger as a last resort myself. And then I could sleep pretty sound at night (bar the odd bit of PTSD and nightmare) knowing that I had done everything I could to prevent needless death.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        @Psyx 17:54

                        "No, and he won't have anything to fear if him and his three mates have drawn weapons, either. Once again we're back to you thinking that a concealed weapon is any use in such a situation." In the dark alley, out of the way of passers by who may be armed and could feel more capable of assisting the victim. That effectively removes crime from the streets around me!!! Not many of those, instead the brutal assaulters happily do this inside the pub and out on the street in front of our flats! What was that statistic for how many people get involved in the UK when they see someone being assaulted?

                        "So... your landlord doesn't let you put a bolt on your bedroom door, but lets you have a gun safe bolted to the floor?" To assume makes an ass out of u and me (as a friend would say). I dont have a gun safe or licence. I use my friends firearms at the club and keep air guns which require no such locking up. I nearly got my firearms certificate before moving up here but realised there was little point due to the rented property with little control over it. Concealed carry would keep the gun on my person and it would make my flat a lot safer and I imagine the idiots over the road will be less inclined to knock 7 bells out of each other in the wee hours. Second to that it means I could keep the gun which I would take to the range.

                        "Like yours that you can out-draw a mugger with a gun pointed at you, you mean? Which part of "You are making more assumptions by assuming that you can protect yourself with a firearm than I am by thinking I can run away" is not sinking in?" A gun is not the solution just as a fire extinguisher isnt. I assume you prepare against fire even with your many exits. I have much fewer and so prepare further. You keep saying run away, but now lets bring you back to the real world a sec. That was eliminated as an option for many people. In my case its the lack of viable exists. For others it could be disability, frailty, injury, etc. So hulk explain for the rest of us how your run away failed idea helps? Tell the families of the victims and the victims that survive. You cant ask me to why this isnt sinking in when I am asking how to save a life and your saying the sky is blue. Stay on subject and answer the question. If you can.

                        "Unfortunately, the very presence of all those firearms in society does more harm than good" Opinion with no factual basis. "Simple maths dictates the lesser of the evils takes priority" Your confusion whereby it is evil for the victim to have a chance is a skewed view supporting evil."If that means that some poor bastard gets killed by a burglar to save five kids shooting themselves" lack of support leading to an emotional appeal skipping the real world in favour of a fantasy.

                        "And yeah: I'd pull the trigger as a last resort myself. And then I could sleep pretty sound at night (bar the odd bit of PTSD and nightmare) knowing that I had done everything I could to prevent needless death." I like how you reference that as the outcome. The flip side of that statement is that the violent attacker about to kill you did not get the opportunity to kill you. Also I ask you compare those nightmares to being violently raped/maimed or the horror of watching your friend/family go through it while you are helpless. See what I did there? I took your emotive plea and turned it on itself. Or dont you think victims get counselling? Often for the fear that this person is still out there, can come back and will likely be doing the same or worse still. All because you are legally enforced to be the victim as it is criminal to have the options to protect yourself/family. Go back to your statement of evils and priority. Your way makes evil have priority. Your way enforces it.

              2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Re: Psyx 17:59

                ".....Unless someone is actually in my bedroom, I have an exit...." OK, but why should I have to accept abandoning my home to a maniac? Why should I have to accept him smashing up my possessions? And how can you be sure he will not follow me outside as I stated earlier, where I will be even further from the weapons I could use for self-defence of myself, my family and my property? Sorry, but you are putting the rights of the intruder as waaaaaaaaay more important than the rights of the victim simply because you dislike guns.

                ".....And if I spent the money on an alarm system rather than a firearm, I'm always going to have enough notice to use that exit....." Sorry, but go read the article - the Lands went outside to see what the noise was on the roof. It was the completely unexpected nature of a naked, drugged up guy jumping on their roof - how many burglar alarms do you know that have a warning for "there's a guy on your roof, he's wild and naked but don't worry, he just wants to smash your TV, crap in your hallway and jack off"? Please stop trying to push the blame onto the victims just because you disprove of firearms, it was Bruni that committed the criminal acts.

                1. Rampant Spaniel

                  Re Tony Martin,

                  Whilst I am not a fan of excessive force, Mr Martin had been the victim of multiple burglaries which the police had been unable to do anything about. As a society we devolved the responsibility for civil protection to the police. Between underfunding, a toothless justice system, piss poor rehabilitation and a general issue with society creating a significant amount of criminals the police are unable to provide a level of protection that we would all like to have. I don't condone shooting fleeing burglars in the back, but I do have an element of sympathy for Mr Martin.

                  If you have ever lived on a farm you might have an idea of just how remote you can be. The police might only be a few minutes away from your semi in an emergency but they can be half an hour away from a farm the same goes for the other emergency services. When you are in a situation where you are repeatedly burgled and left to feel helpless because the people who are supposed to protect you cannot, then it becomes a little more understandable that Mr Martin would be pushed to more drastic action. When you do not feel safe in your own home things change. Yes it wasn't ideal, but the ideal solution was the police catch the pikeys breaking into his farm, that didn't happen. I hope I wouldn't resort to what he did, but I can understand why he did. I haven't been in that situation, but I have had to wait 30 minutes for an ambulance whilst doing CPR (you try doing 15 minutes of pressups) because some moron tourist got drunk and caused a pileup at the same time somebody had a heart attack in the water. Thankfully an AED and oxygen saved the person, but unless you have felt that helpless you can't really understand. I'm not saying he was right, just that it is understandable given how he was let down. Manslaughter diminished responsibility seemed like the right sentence.

                2. Psyx
                  FAIL

                  Re: Psyx 17:59

                  "OK, but why should I have to accept abandoning my home to a maniac?"

                  Why should you want to confront one? Why should you want to put yourself of potentially taking a life over a colour TV. We happily scorn criminals for killing over the price of a TV, but legally killing over the price of your own TV isn't morally too much better. Legal killing isn't a good thing just because it's legal.

                  Maybe I'm just a little less attached to personal property that you.

                  "...simply because you dislike guns."

                  I'm sorry, can you point out where I said I disliked firearms, Matt? You were happy enough to chatter away to me about them as part of the Army sidearm thread.

                  "Please stop trying to push the blame onto the victims just because you disprove of firearms, it was Bruni that committed the criminal acts."

                  Stop putting words in my mouth, Matt. I never pushed blame on any of the victims, I commended them.

                  And where have I stated that I disprove of firearms? Just because my firearm agenda doesn't match yours, you've cunningly shoved me in to the opposing camp and labelled me 'wrong'.

                  Bruni was committing criminal acts but was insane and unarmed. I don't condone putting bullets into someone in that state. I guess maybe I value human life more than you do, if you think it's fine to put down unarmed intruders with firearms.

                  Fail back at you, seeing as you like to put that label on anyone with a different opinion.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Thumb Down

                    Re: Psyx Re: Psyx 17:59

                    "....Bruni was committing criminal acts but was insane and unarmed. I don't condone putting bullets into someone in that state.....if you think it's fine to put down unarmed intruders with firearms....." I never said anyone should have shot Bruni, indeed I pointed out that no-one got shot as an example of responsible gun use. I never said Bruni should have been shot, so who is putting words in whose mouth? However, if Bruni had turned violent then I would have felt it quite justified for the Mrs Land to defend herself by shooting him, and even reasonable for Mr Land to shoot him with the shotgun if he had grounds to belief he was doing so to defend Mrs Land, especially as Bruni seemed to be in a state where reasoning with him was not realistic.

                    "....Why should you want to confront one?...." I have a legal right, even here in the UK, to confront even a trespasser and tell them to leave my land, let alone an intruder smashing my property. I do not have to wait until they actually damage my property. If they should become violent I then have the right to defend myself. You are suggesting just because I have the means and training to defend myself I should not apply them? Why not just ban all martial arts whilst you're at it, seeing as your answer is to roll over and accept whatever criminal action ensues in the hope you are going to be able to report it to a policeman after the event. Sorry, if it was my home Bruni had been running around in, scaring the life out of my wife, I wouldn't have bothered shooting him but I would have beaten the cr*p out of him until he gave up all thoughts of doing anything other than curling up and waiting for an ambulance, and the law would actually be on my side as I could claim reasonable force. In this case, shooting Bruni would not have been reasonable force, but if he had been an armed intruder then it very well could have been.

                    I'll go thumbs down so as not to hurt your delicate sensibilites.

                    1. Psyx
                      FAIL

                      Re: Psyx Psyx 17:59

                      "However, if Bruni had turned violent then I would have felt it quite justified for the Mrs Land to defend herself by shooting him"

                      So instead of just walking out the door, you would consider it morally ok to stand there covering him with a shotgun, and to put a couple into him if he turned on you? Does it not occur to you that maybe pointing a firearm at a nutcase six feet away is a provocation and at least 20% likely to result in someone getting slotted?

                      Maybe I've just seen too many unpleasant situations and dead people with holes in them to think that waving firearms around is a valid solution in 99% of occasions. Lethal violence -to me- is absolutely the last resort, and escalating the confrontation is very low on the lost of priorities, too. Putting a firearm in someone's hands means they have this tendency to start seeing every problem as a nail. And for every home owner who would have acting as per this case, there'd be a fucking moron who'd have just murdered someone insane for trespass. You might be the safest gun-owner in the world, but so long as there are muppets out there, we cater for the lowest denominator.

                      "Sorry, if it was my home Bruni had been running around in, scaring the life out of my wife, I wouldn't have bothered shooting him but I would have beaten the cr*p out of him until he gave up all thoughts of doing anything..."

                      Personally, I'd have got my wife out of the house and called the police first, and gone from there. Odds are I'd have then gone back in there and hit the guy with a stick myself, but that's a long way from using a firearm or a blade on the guy. As you say: It would not be reasonable force to use a firearm if he was unarmed. Luckily I live in a country where burglars are not armed with firearms.

                      "I'll go thumbs down so as not to hurt your delicate sensibilites."

                      Oh do piss off with the constant inferences, Matt. They're not delicate. If you think that there is something weak about giving a shit about human life, regardless of whose it is, then that's your problem, not mine.

                      Likewise, if you're so attached to your colour TV that you're willing to turn a firearm on someone to protect it, you really need to take a good, long look at your priorities in life.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

    This is the only part I don't understand

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

      I think it is obvious that the young fellow had lost complete control of his senses. How putting holes in the wall with a .38 could fix that problem is anybody's guess.

    2. Steve 26

      Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

      So you understand why he started masturbating on the floor when she fired her .38?

      1. Khaptain
        Coat

        Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

        She shot one off so he decided to do the same...

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

        > masturbating on the floor when she fired her .38?

        He obviously got excited. Maybe he was an NRA member?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "drink the contents from a wet-dry vacuum cleaner"

        @Steve 26

        "So you understand why he started masturbating on the floor when she fired her .38?"

        Oooooh yeah, it's that "dominant woman" thing and there's a cfnm situation to boot. I already had to clean the underside of my desk just from reading how she, um, pulled a weapon.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > Read more: Rampage Naked Florida Wet-Dry Vacuum

    The tags are making me laugh harder than the article itself. Sadly this is the only story involving Wet-Dry vacuums. I looked.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: tags

      The only story so far .

      1. Great Bu

        Wet-Dry Vacuum

        How come I'm only finding out now that you can get vacuum cleaners that can accept fluids without breaking ?

        I trashed a dozen Dysons* just last month and their warranty department are starting to get a bit suspicious.

        *Chosen for better suction.....

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Holmes

    LaDonna Land

    Is that a person or a place? is it close to LaLa Land?

  9. Martin Huizing
    Mushroom

    Zombie Apocalypse

    It begins today!!!

  10. Allan George Dyer Silver badge
    Coat

    Half man, half kangeroo?

    "jump naked onto a Florida couple's roof" - or, as the later part of the article clarifies, he jumped off the roof... onto Mr. Land. Perhaps he thought that was a functional description, not a name?

  11. nullacritter

    Sounds more like sensible firearm owners - a couple of warning shots, before realizing the guy is a nutter and not likely to hurt them.

    Hence the 911 call stating what the perp was doing, and not carving him a new arsehole with the 12.

  12. Garry Perez
    Unhappy

    So sad

    To see another electronic engineer go rogue

  13. g e
    WTF?

    Resisting without violence?

    Classic. Passive resistance is an offense in the Good ol' US of A ? (Or just that state?).

    Not submitting obediently and cooperatively.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Resisting without violence?

      Definition of Resisting Officer Without Violence

      The crime of Resisting Officer Without Violence has four elements:

      1 Knowing and willful resisting, obstruction, or opposition of an officer, and at the time:

      2 The officer was engaged in either the:

      Execution of legal process, or Lawful execution of a legal duty.

      3 The officer was either a:

      Law Enforcement Officer, Correctional Officer, Probation Officer, or Person legally authorized to execute process.

      4 The officer's status as an officer was known.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    READ MORE Rampage Naked Florida Wet-Dry Vacuum

    Then I had to click on Wet-Dry Vacuum... only this article so far?

  15. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    "Insanity"

    Apparently, local legal bloggers reckon it is a cert that Bruni will be advised by any attorney to plead temporary insanity, and will probably get off (pun unintended) with a slap on the wrist. The funny bit is Bruni does not seem to have a prior criminal record, which just goes to show that saying "no" really is the better idea.

    1. Psyx
      Holmes

      Re: "Insanity"

      "Apparently, local legal bloggers reckon it is a cert that Bruni will be advised by any attorney to plead temporary insanity, and will probably get off (pun unintended) with a slap on the wrist."

      Without knowing more about the case...

      Is that such a problem if he *was* temporarily insane...?

      If the guy had a psychotic break for whatever reason, is putting him in prison for five years really the solution anyway? I'd hoped our society had got a little beyond doing that.

      Surely psychological assessment and medication in this case are the way forward, rather than throwing away the key?

  16. Ben Rosenthal

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Yl_r_CXeA

  17. Monty Burns

    Just sounds.....

    Like a good night out to me.....

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Monty Burns Just sounds.....

      "Like a good night out to me....." Apparently, Mr Bruni lived sixty miles from the Lands residence, so one does wonder what other "Dude Where's My Car" hilarity ensued in between "Hey Ma, I'm just going out with the boys" and "Oooooh, shiny roof...."

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think he was just having a bad hair day

    If I wasn't being Mr Coward, the cowardly coward, I'd use the Paris icon. C'mon - you know exactly why.

  19. Electric sheep
    Flame

    But

    If they had shot and killed the naked bloke would they have got away with it?

    Should that be gotten?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: But

      Yes. Defence of family and home. Protecting your life from the criminal. This criminal could have been far more dangerous. If they needed to shoot I would completely agree with their right to protect themselves and their home.

      The fact is they are not homicidal nut jobs as some would assume, but instead prepared to defend their home and family. Or is your home and family not worth protecting?

  20. Danny 14
    Pint

    poor guy

    I think the poor guy just heard about the JJ Abrams star wars reboot. Can you imagine Jar Jar binks with added lens flare? Enough to push most mortals over the edge.

  21. Glyph

    warning shots

    I live in carry land as someone put it, and in the 12hr mandatory course, part of the material was never to fire warning shots. Essentially they said never brandish a firearm unless the situation warrants lethal force, and never discharge the firearm unless it is with the intent to stop the situation by hitting the attacker's center of mass. Well they said many things, quite a lot about verbal de-escalation, but that was the relevant part. It seems however that the warning shots worked out quite nicely in this situation.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Glyph Re: warning shots

      "....Essentially they said never brandish a firearm unless the situation warrants lethal force...." I was taught three warnings if the situation permitted - the first is hand on gun in holster or held pointing straight down and not at the target, and other hand held out in the internationally-understood "stop" gesture, accompanied with a verbal warning; if no desired response to warning one, warning two was point the gun to show intent, accompanied by repeating the verbal order; warning three was a warning shot at the ground near the target followed by the assurance you will shoot them if they do not comply. That was taught by an ex-States trooper who stressed that if the intruder was thinking about harming you and you did not convince them of your determination then they would be more likely to attack you, leaving one or both of you seriously injured or dead, but if it took pointing the weapon and/or a warning shot to make them desist then that was the better course of action. Shooting someone was stressed as the last resort, but warning shots were considered more than acceptable. What was stressed was that shooting someone was the last resort, but when it was needed you had better know what you were doing.

      More important was the actual verbal warning. Screaming "freeze motherSmurfer or I will blow your Smurfing head off" is actually not the best idea. Suggesting they leave your property pronto - something like "Stop, put down that weapon and get out NOW" - is, as it offers them a way out. It was quite funny listening to little old ladies on the range practicing their self-defence routine, including their warnings, but it should be a key element to training, otherwise who knows what you'll scream when the adrenalin is flowing. BTW, the little old ladies were taught that if it got to the shooting stage they were to empty the magazine into the intruder and reload before checking if the intruder had changed his mind!

  22. Katie Saucey
    Holmes

    OK..

    and I thought my weekend was fucked up.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: OK..

      Photos or it didn't happen... ;)

  23. StanBumps
    Thumb Up

    Funny

    This is funniest thing I've read in... months! Thanks El Reg!

  24. Aldous
    Meh

    "Mrs Land whipped out a .38 and fired three shots, which hit the wall"

    Remember this one next time someone goes "well if they were all armed batman massacre/columbine/sandy hook/virginia tech would not of happened" that wall could very well have been three bystanders.

    Lets save the deadly force for people who are trained (who even despite this still miss or hit innocents and they have more training then bubba does) have the consent of the people to use

    1. pete 22

      Re: "Mrs Land whipped out a .38 and fired three shots, which hit the wall"

      @ Aldous

      ""Lets save the deadly force for people who are trained (who even despite this still miss or hit innocents and they have more training then bubba does) have the consent of the people to use""

      Oh, you mean like the CCW pistol permit? The license that pistol owners are required to obtain, through an extensive training course and background check? The training that is taught by policemen, and also taken by policemen?

      We *already* have all these safeguards. In this case, the fact that the nutter is still alive is due to this fact.

  25. The Grump
    Childcatcher

    If that is the case...

    if guns are "bad" because some "innocent" burglars and nutters get killed, then let run with that logic.

    Thousands die, and tens of thousands are injured every year in auto accidents. By the gun grabber's logic, private ownership of motor vehicles should be banned, with the exception of the few who qualify for CDL's (Commercial Drivers Licenses) - like the few who qualify for concealed carry permits. You never know when some nutter will try talking on the cell phone, cross the yellow line, and kill a family with children. With CDL's, you would have to prove your need for a license (commercial truck driver). One strike - speeding, overweight vehicle, moving violation - and the CDL is revoked, possibly forever. Much safer than the current system. You would have to move close to public transportation, or walk, without that sweet SUV or sports car.

    Now, are you ready to think of the children ? Hmmmmm ?

    1. Psyx

      Re: If that is the case...

      Firearms are DIFFERENT from cars.

      Different words, y'see. They're different things. They are not relevant to each other.

      1. Dan Paul
        Devil

        Re: If that is the case...

        The fact that remains is that there is such a thing as vehicular homicide, if you use a car to kill someone intentionally or while out of your mind on bath salts or drunk as a lord; they consider an automobile to legally be a "Deadly Weapon" and they are quite definitely relevant to each other in the context of being considered "Deadly" as long as you are not a sniveling nanny state European Communistic PETA member who wants the government to control every aspect of his/her life so they never have to be afraid, fend for themselves or make any difficult decisions for themselves. You and Piers Morgan come to mind.

        So no, there is no frikkin legal difference between a gun and a car. Both are tools that can kill people, so do hammers, baseball bats, rock, spears, bow & arrows, screwdrivers, knives, electricity, fire, ladders, stairs, bicycles, motorcycles, computers, etc, etc.

        Let me know when you FINALLY gain the rational comprehension to understand that the conscious decision to misuse a tool lies soley on the head of the user, not the tool. Tools are inanimate objects that can do nothing without the action of the user. Guns are nothing but tools.

        BTW over 195,000 people die annually from errors in Medical treatment in the USA while there are roughly 33,000 gun related deaths, of that number, 2/3rds 19,000 are gun related suicides. Who are the bigger criminals, the gun owners or the medical system?

        Total Suicides (by any method) is greater than gun deaths, at appx 38,800 per year, auto deaths is just about the same as total gun deaths. Glad we spend enough on mental health in this country (NOT).

        For the record, the rate of gun related deaths has remained fairly consistent for the last two decades so no legislation so far has had any impact whatsoever and likely never will.

        Let us also take into consideration that many gun related deaths (especially in large cities) are gang related and in my mind, as long as they are killing each other, it's a public service. No innocent should ever die needlessly but if you run with criminals, it WILL come back to bite you. None of those gangsters will obey any law and they are better armed than the Police are.

        Since these gangs make their money from the "illegal drug trade" one would think that simply legalizing most drugs would take away their funding and they would soon wither away. The USA also has the highest rate of incarceration (to the point that it is a profit center for private prisons, lawyers and the entire corrupt legal system).

        Legalization is a REAL SOLUTION to gun violence that will never happen because the legal system depends on the illegality of drugs to make their money and publicity as well as corrupt police and others that get paid to look the other way.

        I ask again, who are the bigger criminals?

        1. Psyx

          Re: If that is the case...

          "as long as you are not a sniveling nanny state European Communistic PETA member who wants the government to control every aspect of his/her life so they never have to be afraid, fend for themselves or make any difficult decisions for themselves. You and Piers Morgan come to mind."

          Oh, wow: You've got me bang to rights, there. I love Piers Morgan!

          "So no, there is no frikkin legal difference between a gun and a car."

          Yeah there is: Vehicles are much better regulated. I legally have to spend weeks learning before I'm trusted to use such a lethal device in public and I need all forms of licensing, checks, and a minimum age before I can use it. And if I'm caught mis-using it, I can kiss my right to use it away.

          Wouldn't it be just a BIT fucking sensible if firearms were as closely regulated as these lethal car things that you seem to want to draw into the conversation?

          "Since these gangs make their money from the "illegal drug trade" one would think that simply legalizing most drugs would take away their funding and they would soon wither away. The USA also has the highest rate of incarceration (to the point that it is a profit center for private prisons, lawyers and the entire corrupt legal system)."

          I won't disagree with much of that. Although it must chill you to have a PETA-loving, Communist, European, Piers Morgan fanclub member agreeing with you.

          However: Simply legalising drugs is non-viable in the simplistic way you want it to be. Cocaine and Opiates are inherently blood-stained right from their source. Make legal drugs that come from outside of the US and although you might decrease the bloodshed on your own streets, you're just dialling up the bodycount in the countries that produce them and which are transit points. Or do you plan on pressuring the rest of the world to start legalising these drugs at source?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            * BANGED to rights

            See title for demonstration of how to use the past tense.

          2. Dan Paul
            Devil

            Re: If that is the case...

            The fact is that cars and guns have the same consideration as weapons under US law, if you misuse these tools the result is identical.

            You seem unwilling to listen to the argument that you cannot blame the tool for the actions of the user.

            That is the one statement in this whole discussion that cannot be dismissed because it is so obvious to most rational people.

            Perhaps a damning indictment of our mental health care system but most policies that we pay for cover 1-2 hours a month of mental health counseling, no more. They throw you out of the hospital after two weeks and if you are really nuts they might just give you 30 days max confinement and observation. Nothing said about long term treatment except for those who have enough money to pay out of pocket.

            The nutters who killed those in Columbine & Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut etc etc never get identified, treated or incarcerated in time because it is too costly.

            Again, law abiding people get punished for the sins of others and the REAL reason (lack of mental health care) and it's solution is constantly ignored.

            Since you only believe what you hear from (in my mind very biased) European sources, you should also try to understand that in MOST US states (most are greater than the size and population of one of Europes countries), handguns and rifles are regulated very tightly. Minimum Age, Background checks, registrations, carry liscencing are all the norm. You cannot get a pistol permit if you were less than 21 in any state but you can drive in almost all when you are 14. You have to be 18 to get a rifle or shotgun in almost all states.

            There are perhaps a dozen states left that do not have strong handgun regulation and they admittedly need to be more regulated. There are only a few states (mostly southern&western areas) that allow fully automatic weapons and those weapons have to be federally registered as well as state. The requirements for those are very stringent and come under truly onerous penalties.

            Statistically, 99.98% of all annual gun related deaths (appx 38,800 total, about 19,900 of those are gun related suicides) happen strictly with handguns, not any type of rifles or shotguns (less than 1%). Try here for more details - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

            Gun deaths per 100,000 people is 10.3 in the US or 0.000103 (pretty insignificant number)

            Try here for comparison of cause of death http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

            Or here http://www.gao.gov/cghome/healthcare/img44.html

            Also, look at the percentage of gun related deaths in almost all Central, South American countries as well as all Carribean travel destinations which are quite a bit higher than the US. BTW most guns are made in Europe or elswhere outside of the US so don't try to blame us just for making them.

            The guns that criminals get come from two main sources, 70-75% straw buyers (criminals who purchase guns in low documentation states and resell them elswhere privately) and 5% theft from owners (who obviously don't take enough precautions to lock them up. Smuggling through Mexico now accounts for about 20% of the illegal gun trade but that is getting higher.

            Criminals will always have guns. Terrorists can always accomplish their goals, even if they do not use guns. There is NO WAY to stop the concerted efforts of a criminal because if they don't have one way to kill, they will find another. Both DC and Chicago tried banning guns and things only got worse.

            The Columbine Shooters also had pipe bombs & napalm and they would have used them more if they did not have guns. There were several bombings, Ted Kaczinski the Unabomber, Oklahoma City, Lancaster, PA.

            Wiki has a number of lists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks and various other links showing that the US is far from being alone in gun related attacks.

            Gun bans do not solve GUN CRIME. The statistics prove that gun crimes do not decrease with further gun legislation and in fact increase in some areas, especially where legal gun owners have their guns banned. The total number of gun related deaths (including suicide) has not varied more than 5,000 up or down for over 30 years.

            Also notice that I only mentioned legalization as it would help cut the income of drug cartels and help reduce gun crime in the US. What happens outside of the US is outside my control but logically, there would be less money going overseas. That's not being simplistic, just pointing out the inequities of the US legal system and the direct result on crime. Note that fully 50% or more of our so called "Criminals" are in prison for relatively minor crimes that by themselves would never warrant incarceration, especially if they were white.

            Any chance that being wrongly accused or inequitably imprisoned might make someone have a tendency towards violence? To use a gun to kill because "they are never going back there"? To have serious mental health issues?

            What about Bullying? I see significant cause and effect between being bullied and mass shootings/bombings/violence. Most of these shooters also commit suicide, another indication of underlying mental health related problems.

            This whole issue is directly related to mental health and that fact is being denied by everyone involved.

            Instead of finding real solutions, it is easier to blame inanimate objects and create "feel good" legislation that solves NOTHING.

  26. Herby

    What isn't mentioned...

    Well, the gun stuff is a bit outrageous, and commenting further just re-hashes previous comments. My big question is what was the intruder on?

    It must be the water in Florida or something, as they get all sorts of screwballs there. Sad to say that locally here in sunny California, isn't far behind in is ration of screwballs either. Funny how it seems that quite a few of them are in out state Capitol, Sacramento, doing "political" things.

    Yes it must be the water!

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    911...

    911: when seconds count, help is only minutes away!

    It stories like this one from Florida that fuel further gun ownership in America. Although I would think the Euros would be gleeful, many of the handguns are from the EU providing a tidy positive balance of payments dividend and jobs. Hey, and if worst comes to worst maybe the Americans will all off themselves and eliminate a major trading competitor! Then the UK can repopulate America (trouncing the Spanish, Dutch, and French... again) only this time not making HMK GeorgeIII mistakes but perhaps borrowing more from the pickelhaube set.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 911...

      Minutes, hours, days. Makes little difference if your in danger.

  28. Hardwareguy
    IT Angle

    IT related ?. Am i on the wrong website ?/

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      "IT related ?....." Erm... The TV! Yeah, I know it's a stretch, but the only other option was the possible correlation between youthful misuse of hallucinogenics and crminal anti-social behavior, used as a possible explanation of the Anons, but that would upset far too many of the trendy crowd here.

  29. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Pirate

    Quick question for Psyx.

    Earlier you stated that you don't think you need a firearm for protection in the UK, it was something along the lines of UK criminals not carrying them. You also claimed you would be able to get out of a situation by escaping. This begs the question, if you are so convinced you will not be shot by an armed intruder or criminal, why do you feel the need to ban gun ownership in the UK? Surely you're arguing they represent no risk, therefore there is no reason to ban any form of firearm. After all, if you really believe what you posted then no-one is at risk then surely I can have as many firearms as I like and get on with my sport shooting without any more worries. Of course, if you still think they should be banned then you are doing so not from a logical viewpoint but of one where you have already convinced yourself you are right and can therefore bend your arguments to suit regardless.

    1. Psyx
      FAIL

      Re: Quick question for Psyx.

      "Earlier you stated that you don't think you need a firearm for protection in the UK, it was something along the lines of UK criminals not carrying them."

      Yup.

      "You also claimed you would be able to get out of a situation by escaping."

      No: I claimed it would be my first priority to do so.

      "This begs the question, if you are so convinced you will not be shot by an armed intruder or criminal, why do you feel the need to ban gun ownership in the UK?"

      I didn't. Please show me where the hell I said 'ban guns in the UK.'

      "Surely you're arguing they represent no risk, therefore there is no reason to ban any form of firearm."

      There's no risk precisely because there are so few firearms out there, and those that are legally out there are justified and well-kept, and generally not favourable to criminal activities (barring sawn-offs... Personally I'd extend to all shotguns the same licensing system as used for rifles and have them all individually licensed, rather than current blanket shotgun certificate system).

      "After all, if you really believe what you posted then no-one is at risk then surely I can have as many firearms as I like and get on with my sport shooting without any more worries."

      That's not even remotely logical. Because there are so few firearms in criminal hands there is next to no firearm crime, if anyone can have as many firearms as they like, there will continue to be next to no firearm crimes. Seriously?

      Looking forward to you finding where I want all guns banned. A few exchanges ago you were whining about extremism, and you've repeatedly assumed I'm extremist in my views, simply because I'm not in your camp. WTG, Matt.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Re: Quick question for Psyx.

        ".....I didn't. Please show me where the hell I said 'ban guns in the UK....." But you did say you thought the idea a firearm for self-defence was illogical in the UK:

        "....There's no risk precisely because there are so few firearms out there....." Thurs 31st 1443GMT

        ".....I just firmly believe that firearms for personal protection in the UK are a stupid idea...." Wed 30th 1224GMT

        Did you go watch the Youtube vids I linked to? Did you see what is happening in areas like Brixton and Totenham? You may think it's not your area so you don't have to worry, but I often drive through both areas. One of my friends has a daughter that was studying in London up until a mugger shot another student in the street outside her student house, and that was Surbiton which is considered a nice area! Her parents got her to switch courses to another uni outside London because her mother couldn't sleep at nights after the shooting. The truth is there is plenty of gun-crime in the UK, taking handguns from legal owners made SFA difference except helping the voters keep their heads in the sand. Dealing with the loonies and criminals was simply too much trouble and expense so they went with the cheaper, vote-winning ban option instead.

        1. Psyx
          Boffin

          Re: Quick question for Psyx.

          "But you did say you thought the idea a firearm for self-defence was illogical in the UK:"

          Yes, Matt. And that's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING. Are you simply being wilfully contrary? Or can yu not see that they are two entirely different concepts. It's like you have this mental block where anyone who opposes you in one area must have a series of matching politics and opinions of some kind. Perhaps I'm left wing and like windmills as well, and would like all criminals given hugs until they're better, in your mind?

          "Did you go watch the Youtube vids I linked to?"

          I'll just avoid that direct question and ignore it in the same way that you do repeatedly.

          Look: If it is *so* important for you to own a handgun for whatever reason you want to tack on and justify it with, why not just get up and move to the States earlier than you planned to, where the number of firearms has done a wonderful job in deterring felons and firearm deaths have been pretty much wiped out. Or one of the other countries in the world where they are totally happy for you to walk around strapping iron.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Psyx Re: Quick question for Psyx.

            I see you're not just avoiding the Youtube vids but also avoiding trying to counter any of the points raised. You believe (as in faith-based, emotive belief) there is no need for a firearm for personal defence in the UK, I have shown there is an argument the is. I have also pointed out that removing handguns from legal owners did absolutely nothing for handgun use in crime, but was also the quickest "solution" for politicians looking for a few votes. I have pointed out that the articles shows that armed householders managed to detain a deranged intruder without shooting him, despite posters here maintaining that guns equate to immediate and inevitable death. I have also pointed out that guns are not the biggest danger to safety even in trigger-happy America. Yet you believe I should ignore my rights and emigrate? I'm sure you'd be suggesting that to your family if they banned cars in the UK. Sorry, but for that laughable effort we're back to the "Fail" icon, richly deserved.

            1. Psyx
              FAIL

              Re: Psyx Quick question for Psyx.

              "I have shown there is an argument the is."

              You have shown that there is an argument. But there is also an argument that the moon is made of cheese. That's not particularly valid, either.

              "(as in faith-based, emotive belief)"

              No it's not. It's a belief founded on experience, coupled with common sense. We can each go backward and forward with any number of statistics that we want to 'prove' our cases but ultimately BOTH are views are personal. You belief is that you want firearms and feel that they will protect your own property and family (and enjoy using them recreationally) and that you are willing to see more firearms in illegal hands because you feel that the balance of power will still swing in your direction. Whereas Mine is that -as much as I enjoy firearms- my right to own one is eclipsed by other people's rights not to be more likely to face one in criminal hands, and that more firearms equates to more people getting shot on aggregate. You can't possibly rubbish my argument with any moral or intellectual high ground when you are so closely tied emotionally to your own opinion.

              The very fact that you personally want more guns always ensures that your mind is made up and regardless of any logic, you'll jump through intellectual hoops to justify that with a totally closed mind. I hope that one day you'll get over it and even consider a wider picture and put your own perceived needs and cognitive bias behind you.

              "Yet you believe I should ignore my rights and emigrate?"

              You don't HAVE a right to own firearms to potentially point at other people here, Matt. It's like whining about the 'right' to own slaves or beat your wife. We're past that, thankfully. If you want that right, go somewhere less civilised. Please.

              After the weekend I'm at least glad that I won't have to be told any more that teachers should carry firearms because that will make school shootings a thing of the past because "Nobody ever gets murdered at a shooting club, because everyone is armed".

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Psyx Re: Psyx Quick question for Psyx.

                "....But there is also an argument that the moon is made of cheese...." You are truly living in denial if you want to pretend my posts contain no more verifiable facts than that the moon is made of cheese.

                "....It's a belief founded on experience, coupled with common sense...." So first you say there is no reason to have a gun for self-defence in the UK, then that there is no gun-crime to worry about, and even after I post evdience that there is both you simply ignore it? Yeah, really based on common sense.....

                "....and that you are willing to see more firearms in illegal hands....other people's rights not to be more likely to face one in criminal hands...." That's funny! Firstly I did not say that, indeed I pointed out that the handgun ban just removed leaglly owned guns, it did nothing to reduce criminal use. Secondly, you insisted there was no gun crime in the UK to need protecting from! So which is it, there is lots of gun crime and more handguns will make it worse, or there is no gun crime and therefore no need for more guns? The only common element is your insistance that there should not be any more guns, and anything else is simply you trying to twist the arguments to suit your purpose.

                "....The very fact that you personally want more guns always ensures that your mind is made up and regardless of any logic...." No, it simply shows that I can make my mind up based on logic and reason, whereas you cannot supply an argument to sway my opinion. Indeed, I have quickly and easily debunked all your contradictory arguments, so it is you that is not using logic at all. You made your mind up and are refusing to acknowledge simple facts I have shown to be true.

                "....You don't HAVE a right to own firearms to potentially point at other people here, Matt....." Actually I do. English law entitles me to self-defence and the defence of others, as long as I use reasonable force. That does not preclude me from using a legally-owned gun to defend myself or family, as long as I can show it was reasonable force. If you wish to argue otherwise then actually try and prove it by showing the law that expressly says I can never use a firearm in self-defence in the UK (hint - start with The Crminal Law Act 1967, then read the Human Rights Act 1998). Should keep you busy for a while.

                1. Psyx
                  FAIL

                  Re: Psyx Psyx Quick question for Psyx.

                  "That's funny! Firstly I did not say that"

                  Not all of my opinions are formed upon what YOU say, Matt. If you don't think that legalising handguns for self-defence in the UK would see at least ONE more firearm in criminal hands, then you are a fool. Even ONE more firearm is MORE. And to my mind, that's not worth my ultimately selfish desire to shoot tin cans on a Sunday.

                  "The only common element is your insistance that there should not be any more guns, and anything else is simply you trying to twist the arguments to suit your purpose."

                  /facepalm. Of course, duh. Because that's my and that what debate is. You are likewise 'twisting' facts when you present them to me to support YOUR purpose, unless you want to suddenly present me with all those *other* statistics that show that firearms actually DO kill a fuck-ton of people. Unless you'd like me to whimper and suddenly admit that you're right? Which ain't happening, because you're not.

                  You want a sidearm for whatever reason. I personally grew out of that a long while ago. I've held a different opinion, but life experience taught me that it was wrong. Maybe you need to see more corpses with holes in before telling me that my opinion was formed incorrectly. Because I feel that you having the nerve to call my opinion invalid and yours valid because yours is propped up by selective statistics and mine based on up-front personal experience to be a crock of shit, Matt.

                  Look at as many twisted statistics as you like, but more firearms = more corpses. A well-armed society is a violent, frightened, unpleasant society, with a well-armed criminal class, who have far less compunction about using firearms than you or I ever will.

                  "That does not preclude me from using a legally-owned gun to defend myself or family, as long as I can show it was reasonable force."

                  I know how the law works, Matt. Although if you do use a firearm, put holes in people and kill them and they WEREN'T armed, dangerous, and coming for you, then legally you are in potential trouble. Far safer to hit them with a stick, legally. Or: How about a taser, Matt? How would that suit you, if they were legal? Except it wouldn't, because you're focused on firearms. No other solution is good enough for you, which leads me to think that the self-defence thing is not a concern, so much as a justification.

                  Why do you even care what I think, Matt?

                  It's not like you give a shit for a single victim of one of the inevitable accidental shootings that would occur if you got your wet dream of packing pistol on your hip for a walk down the corner-shop, so why do you give a damn that I firmly believe that your opinion is wilfully blinkered, utterly selfish, and based on cognitive bias because you personally want some more firearms?

                  1. jake Silver badge

                    @Matt Bryant & Psyx

                    Would you two please just get a room? You're clearly in love ... Get the inevitable over with. You'll both be a lot happier, and the rest of us will have less drivel to scroll through.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Happy

                      Re: @Matt Bryant & Psyx

                      Aw, Jake, you know you're the only opinionated bigot for me! Besides, if I get room with every numbskull that posts waffle here I'd need to buy an hotel!

                      1. This post has been deleted by its author

                      2. This post has been deleted by its author

                      3. jake Silver badge

                        Bigot? Me? Where the hell did THAT come from? (was: Re: @Matt Bryant & Psyx)

                        Serious question.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          Happy

                          Re: Bigot? Me? Where the hell did THAT come from? (was: @Matt Bryant & Psyx)

                          Just winding you back, Jake. Your posts are usually of interest, humour and useful insight.

                          1. This post has been deleted by its author

                          2. jake Silver badge
                            Pint

                            Re: Bigot? Me? Where the hell did THAT come from? (was: @Matt Bryant & Psyx)

                            Actually, in retrospect, can one be called a "bigot" if one looks down one's nose at people who are intentionally, willfully, and stubbornly ignorant/misogynistic/xenophobic (often to the point of violence), against any individual "other" group, just because of the "other" group's gender, race, skin colo(u)r or birthplace, none of which any Human on earth can choose for themselves?

                            If so, I'll cheerfully cop to being a bigot! :-)

                            Religion, on the other hand ... if you're over the age of consent, and still can't think for yourself ... Do I really need to finish this paragraph?

                            This round's on me.

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: "Religion, on the other hand .."

                              Boswell: "There are, I am afraid, many people who have no religion at all."

                              Seward: "And sensible people, too."

                              Johnson: "Why, Sir, not sensible in that respect. There must be either a natural or moral stupidity, if one lives in a total neglect of so very important a concern."

                              Seward: "I wonder that there should be people without religion."

                              Johnson: "Sir, you need not wonder at this, when you consider how large a proportion of almost every man's life is passed without thinking of it."

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    @Psyx 10:19

                    "I've held a different opinion, but life experience taught me that it was wrong". Based on that accepting statement could you not accept that as a life lesson that you could still be wrong. You have a very strong and narrow minded opinion which is not open do discussion. Matt is fairly solid in his opinion but it can be debated. The discussions on what regulations and limits could possibly improve situations or sensibly be implemented make the difference.

                    I remember 1 comment of yours on this comment section that seemed fair. Beyond that you have absolutely disregarded any possible discussion of firearms for self defence with an absolute solid line where you seem entrenched. Your general opinions I have read about gun owners are awful and I really disliked you quickly for thinking you were some hulk and the real world doesnt apply to you. I am sorry but you insulted and mocked gun owners especially anyone considering self defence. Then you cry off when someone does it to you. You made demands that people dont make assumptions or speak for others, but then you do it yourself to support your beliefs.

                    Claiming that anyone who doesnt totally agree with your absolutist position doesnt give a shit for victims is low. That is a low statement I would assume anyone respectful would retract or clarify. Matt is pretty locked in with his views but will discuss limits. You dont seem willing to concede your position or discuss possibilities at all.

                    And in the end this isnt going to affect policy. It is a discussion forum.

                  3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: Psyx Psyx Quick question for Psyx.

                    ".....If you don't think that legalising handguns for self-defence in the UK would see at least ONE more firearm in criminal hands, then you are a fool....." Actually very unlikely seeing as even BEFORE the handgun ban the cost of legally purchasing and keeping a firearm had gone up so much it was cheaper for criminals to buy abroad and smuggle them in. So far, almost 99% of the Op Trident handguns recovered since the ban were never legally imported into the UK, and the few once registered weapons were ones stolen before the ban. My old .22 Sako Triace would have been over zero interest to a criminal, they want military calibres.

                    ".....Because that's my and that what debate is....." The contradictory nature of your statements show you are not debating, you are simply making stuff up.

                    "..... I personally grew out of that a long while ago...." Sorry to dent your ego but you are not the center of the universe. I can probably find some hobby or sport you enjoy but I "grew out of" or have no interest in, that doesn't give me the right to insist it is banned.

                    ".....Maybe you need to see more corpses with holes in before telling me that my opinion was formed incorrectly....." Again, you are not the center of the universe, and you are not the only person to have seen the results of violence before. I have to ask how many of those corpses were in the UK? Can I insist we ban cigarettes because I have seen someone that burned to death? I have seen the results of an unarmed homeowner knived by an intruder in the UK, so stick that up your center of the universe.

                    "......you having the nerve to call my opinion invalid and yours valid because yours is propped up by selective statistics and mine based on up-front personal experience to be a crock of shit, Matt....." Thanks for confirming that you are exactly what I said - someone that is making a decision based on emotion and ignoring simple facts.

                    ".....I know how the law works...." Really? But you insisted I had no RIGHT to point a gun at anyone? Oh, was that the emotion talking?

                    "..... Although if you do use a firearm, put holes in people and kill them and they WEREN'T armed, dangerous, and coming for you, then legally you are in potential trouble...." Ignoring that I pointed out the bit about reasonable force, I could be "legally in potential trouble" for swearing at someone, it's potentially threatening behaviour. Your trying to deflect the argument with ridiculous claims that all I want to do is shoot people regardless is just a measure of your desperation. I already own firearms and haven't gone on a spree, thanks, just like thousands of other responsible gun-owners in the UK, and even millions in Switzerland.

                    ".....Why do you even care what I think, Matt?...." Because you repeat the staple propaganda of the uninformed, and other readers may take your claims of personal experience and assume they give your silliness value, and those people may just be the kind some politician thinks he can garner a few votes with by introducing another unnecessary gun ban.

                    ".....It's not like you give a shit for a single victim of one of the inevitable accidental shootings that would occur...." Oh puh-lease, save that male bovine manure for Oprah. If all you cared about was accidental deaths you'd be too busy banning cars, motorcycles, scissors and even electrical home appliances, all of which way kill more people in the UK annually than guns either now or before the ineffective handgun ban. You don't like guns and don't want one then that's fine, but it gives you SFA right to try and dictate the same to anyone else.

  30. SirDigalot

    I am sure it has been mentioned already

    most Florida homes are block and stucco, not the average stick built wonderment that passes as a house in the nor east and Midwest.. I need an 8 inch masonry bit to get through my outside wall (ok and only a fist to punch interior walls I am no ballistics expert but I am doubting even a .38 would make it through the exterior walls, (windows not included)

    FWIW the CCW course really gets blown up out of all proportion, rather like the driving tests and such, like you need to be an ex navy seal to pass it. It is not actually that hard, if it was many people who currently pass would actually fail (including police some of whom should have failed the psych test in the first place :-/ )

    I noticed a comment about the water here, I have not been to a single place in Florida including ft myers where the water even tastes close to actual water, I rather associate it more with the sewage equivalent of tab clear, that great sewage taste yet clear(ish) and that is straight from the municipal supply, oh, ok, chlorinated sewage, I am confused how they blend the taste so well, but they manage it... blech! the only thing I like going back up north for is the water which, although still chlorinated, does not taste like something took a crap then died in it, or vice versa..

    however these stories are incredibly funny, and it does seem to be a common occurrence down here, I do not think it is just the water.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022