A question on the right to self defense

[seth gecko]

None of these events are common in the real world: How often do armed intruders break into homes? It's rare.

Here are some statistics from the Toronto Police Services for YTD 2009 (up to 01 June):
Break & enter: 3277, or nearly 22 per day
Assault : 6524, approx 43 per day
Robbery : 1791, almost 12 per day

Of the B&E's alone, it's not so rare (as some may assume) that the intruder be armed....even the screwdriver, or prybar, or hammer, or rock that he may have used to break in with may be used as a weapon. Or he can easily arm himself with something from your house once he's inside.

But, as the Toronto Police Services oversee a population of approx. 2.5 million, odds are pretty good you won't be a victim of these daily occurences

 

[seth gecko]

You're not far off--the most accurate version is this: "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people."

Actually, Loraly Lynn's comment is more commonly used and likely more accurate. People kill people. Guns can make it easier, but knives, ropes, bricks, bludgeons, wrenchs, garden utensils, flashlights, etc, etc can be used as deadly weapons in human hands. So you could more accurately say that people with weapons kill people, but since these weapons still need a human wielding them, and since the bare human hand can also be an instrument of death (strangulation, pummeling), its likely best to stick with "guns don't kill people; people kill people"

 

[fuji]

But, as the Toronto Police Services oversee a population of approx. 2.5 million, odds are pretty good you won't be a victim of these daily occurences

Exactly. It's rare, and your numbers were for total cases of B&E only a small fraction of which would have involved an armed intruder. Most B&E's are committed by unarmed intruders who break in when nobody is home.

The odds that you will ever in your life have someone smash down your door carrying a gun are vanishingly small.

 

[fuji]

Actually, Loraly Lynn's comment is more commonly used and likely more accurate.

Her comment is commonly used by people with an agenda, but statistically, it is more accurate to say that people with guns kill people. Overwhelmingly murders are committed by people with guns. While it's possible to kill someone with a brick it's far, far less common.

Actually the first part of that is wrong--it is inaccurate to say that guns don't kill people. When a gun is used to kill someone it's accurate to say both that they were killed by the gun and also accurate to say they were killed by the person wielding the gun.

Thus it's probably better just to leave it as this:

"People with guns kill the most people, but sometimes people without guns kill people too."

Does not quite have the same ideological ring to it though does it?

 

[The LoLRus]

Bottom line Fuji, if an armed burglar entered your house, and you were forced to shoot him or her (in self-defense), I bet you would want a judge to exonerate you. Anything less and I call you a hypocrit.

Or perhaps a burglar tried to kill your wife, would you not want the option of self-defense??
Or in this case spousal-defense???

 

[fuji]

Bottom line Fuji, if an armed burglar entered your house, and you were forced to shoot him or her (in self-defense), I bet you would want a judge to exonerate you. Anything less and I call you a hypocrit.

Or perhaps a burglar tried to kill your wife, would you not want the option of self-defense??
Or in this case spousal-defense???

You can shoot someone who is an immediate threat, which in both of the cases you just gave they are. There is no legal problem shooting someone who is trying to kill someone, and by "forced to" in the first part I assume you mean they posed some direct, immediate threat to me.

What you can't do is shoot someone who is NOT an immediate threat just becuase they are in your house.

 

[The LoLRus]

What you can't do is shoot someone who is NOT an immediate threat just becuase they are in your house.

Thats fair and I agree with you, Fuji.

But in a split second decision its virtually impossible to make that distinction, unless you're some type of super-human.
Yes or no?????

 

[Aardvark154]

I think you have more guns than me, but I will say one thing I have gleaned from reading military history, police fact & fiction etc etc.

NEVER shoot to 'wound'. Its too hard to hit anything with a hand gun. Once you make the decision- shoot for the torso, and keep shooting until the bad guy is down & stays down.

Even target practice should teach this lesson: it is very difficult to hit someone precisely where you aimed, and its corollary, never fire unless you are willing to live with having killed the person you shot at.

 

[seth gecko]

Exactly. It's rare, and your numbers were for total cases of B&E only a small fraction of which would have involved an armed intruder. Most B&E's are committed by unarmed intruders who break in when nobody is home.

The odds that you will ever in your life have someone smash down your door carrying a gun are vanishingly small.

I wasn't agreeing with you. "Rare" is something that is uncommon or unusual, or occurring seldom. Something that happens 22 times a day would generally NOT be considered "rare" by most reasonable people. In a city of 2.5million people, it is improbable that you will be the victim of a B&E, or assault or robbery, but these are not RARE occurances.

It is improbable that you will win the 6/49 lottery (odds are something like 14million to one, I beleive), but there usually is a weekly winning ticket, so a win is not rare. Get it??

Would you have any statistics to support your claims "only a small fraction of which would have involved an armed intruder". If nobody is home when the B&E occurs, how do you know the intruder is unarmed, or hasn't armed himself upon unlawful entry to the premises. And remember, "armed" does NOT refer only to a gun......he can be armed with a knife, lead pipe, rock, etc etc. Perhaps the police categorize and armed B&E as an assault, which occur approx twice as often daily as do B&E's. I wonder what criteria the police use to differentiate the two....maybe CC section 41.2 may be of help here? Anybody care to look that one up & post it?

Also, you state that "the odds that you will ever in your life have someone smash down your door carrying a gun are vanishingly small". Are you using that to emphasize that it is unlikely that an individual will ever face a life-threatening situation? You replied to Sheik a few posts back that you've been in a few life-threatening situations (i don't remember the number that you claimed & don't really care to look it up, but it was more than once). Care to shed some light on what your scary-times were? I'm sure lots of people are curious & would like to hear about them.

Holy crap!!! Wouldn't it be ironic if Fuji's life-threatening experiences were both break-ins by armed intruders that Fuji averted from becoming something worse by exiting out of his own home? And that Fuji experienced these "rare" events MORE THAN ONCE exactly because it was the same guy both times because he saw what an easy target Fuji's house was. That would be priceless.

But seriously Fuji, what were the life-threatening experiences of yours?

 

[seth gecko]

Thank you for the clarifying

You are welcome. I felt it appropriate to demonstrate some southern-style chivalry on behalf of a Dixie Belle.

 

[fuji]

I wasn't agreeing with you.

No, you've instead launched in to some mind-numbingly pathetic and petty debate over whether I should use the word "rare" or "uncommon" as if it somehow matters. I happen to think your notion of what "rare" means is completely wrong, but it isn't worth arguing about.

In any case the point remains: Your odds of encountering an armed intruder in your home are vanishingly small.

Would you have any statistics to support your claims "only a small fraction of which would have involved an armed intruder".

I can find some, but if I have to go find some that would be because common sense has failed you. Armed crimes are far less common than unarmed crimes--if you have a hard time believing that, well you're a moron. If you need me to prove that you're a moron just ask and I will.

What would be more useful though would be for you to quit being so ridiculously petty, quibbling with words, quibbling with common sense, and focus on making some actual valid point. That would make this whole thing more constructive for both of us.

Perhaps the police categorize and armed B&E as an assault, which occur approx twice as often daily as do B&E's.

No. An assault is any unwanted touching, B&E is a trespass that required breaking or smashing something. One is a crime against a person, the other is a crime against property. They are utterly unrelated.

Note that assault includes spitting on someone--your assault statistic there is obviously going to be dominated by minor assaults. "Assault causing bodily harm" is the statistic that would describe what you would think of as a real assault.

Guess what, assault causing bodily harm is rare.

Also, you state that "the odds that you will ever in your life have someone smash down your door carrying a gun are vanishingly small". Are you using that to emphasize that it is unlikely that an individual will ever face a life-threatening situation?

I was responding to someone else, Aardvark I think, who asked how likely something was. I responded by pointing out that the whole situation is unlikely to begin with, so the probabilities are going to be counter-intuitive. Humans are remarkably bad at estimating the relative probabilities of two highly unlikely events.

In most cases an intruder is not interested in a confrontation with a homeowner and is going to try and flee the moment they realize you're actually home. The odds that they are armed are small, and even if they are armed the chances are they would rather not get into a confrontation with you--they'd rather get the fuck out of there.

Sure, there are a vanishingly small number of cases of intruders who are intent on committing violence and who break into your home armed. These are generally called "home invasions" by the police. These home invasions happen in Toronto, but they are far, far less common than garden variety B&E's that are carried out when nobody is home by unarmed thieves.

You replied to Sheik a few posts back that you've been in a few life-threatening situations (i don't remember the number that you claimed & don't really care to look it up, but it was more than once). Care to shed some light on what your scary-times were? I'm sure lots of people are curious & would like to hear about them.

I can tell you that they didn't involve criminals.

 

[seth gecko]

No, you've instead launched in to some mind-numbingly pathetic and petty debate over whether I should use the word "rare" or "uncommon" as if it somehow matters. I happen to think your notion of what "rare" means is completely wrong, but it isn't worth arguing about.

I think my definition of rare is pretty damn close to just about any dictionary definition of rare. As for being accused of petty debating, I'd say the score is now 1 to Seth, and many MANY more than one towards Fuji. Not that numbers matter, as any statistics you might be able to find would most likely be made up by you to support your crap. The Toronto police crime stats are easily verifiable. But c'mon Fuji....87% of the population know that 49% of all statistics are bullshit!

I can find some, but if I have to go find some that would be because common sense has failed you. Armed crimes are far less common than unarmed crimes--if you have a hard time believing that, well you're a moron. If you need me to prove that you're a moron just ask and I will.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not a moron, but if you'd like to try to prove it, you go right ahead! I do however find your insinuation rude, and so that you can prove that you're not the hypocrite that several other posters in this thread have accused you of being, a response from you similar to what you requested from Lolrus back at post #176 would only help make you look the better!

What would be more useful though would be for you to quit being so ridiculously petty, quibbling with words, quibbling with common sense, and focus on making some actual valid point. That would make this whole thing more constructive for both of us.

Holy crap! You took the words right out of my mouth!!!

No. An assault is any unwanted touching, B&E is a trespass that required breaking or smashing something. One is a crime against a person, the other is a crime against property. They are utterly unrelated.

Fuji, I actually GAVE you the Criminal Code of Canada reference here. Look up 41.2! Post it on here! Prove me wrong!

Note that assault includes spitting on someone--your assault statistic there is obviously going to be dominated by minor assaults. "Assault causing bodily harm" is the statistic that would describe what you would think of as a real assault.

Guess what, assault causing bodily harm is rare.

Again, any statistics?? Any proof? Anything.....for if you have nothing, then the TPS crime stats are the only source provided thus far, and the stats indicate assaults are anything but rare......care to give me your definition of "rare"?

I was responding to someone else, Aardvark I think, who asked how likely something was. I responded by pointing out that the whole situation is unlikely to begin with, so the probabilities are going to be counter-intuitive. Humans are remarkably bad at estimating the relative probabilities of two highly unlikely events.

In most cases an intruder is not interested in a confrontation with a homeowner and is going to try and flee the moment they realize you're actually home. The odds that they are armed are small, and even if they are armed the chances are they would rather not get into a confrontation with you--they'd rather get the fuck out of there.

Sure, there are a vanishingly small number of cases of intruders who are intent on committing violence and who break into your home armed. These are generally called "home invasions" by the police. These home invasions happen in Toronto, but they are far, far less common than garden variety B&E's that are carried out when nobody is home by unarmed thieves.

Well, unfortunately the Toronto police don't seem to be on top of legal matters to the extent that you are, so they only provide stats under "assault" and B&E. They probably use the Criminal Code to differentiate. That's where that pesky reference 41.2, that you seem to want to ignore or dispute, comes in.

I can tell you that they didn't involve criminals.

I really didn't care about your bullcrap stories, I was just prodding you on. I think I've succeeded.

Fuji, on numerous occasions throughout this thread different posters have called you out, or caught your contradictions, or asked for a straight answer, but you just continue to fertilize the plants. Awhile ago I said I wasn't going to argue with an idiot over the internet, and now it's time for me to live up to that. You're either to arrogant, or insecure, or immature or maybe just plain stupid to understand. Post whatever you want as it's sooo important for you to get the last word in and set the rest of the world straight with your brilliance.
I'm on vacation this week, my chick is out-of-town, so I'm bored and lonely & normally would never waste my time with this trivial childishness, but you seem to do it with some degree of consistancy. So congrats Fuji, you've won.*







*My definition of "won" in this instance is not what most people would use. I use it here to mean "I feel sad for you"

 

[fuji]

I think my definition of rare is pretty damn close to just about any dictionary definition of rare.

From the point of view of an individual home invasions are rare, meaning "coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon".

I'm pretty sure that I'm not a moron, but if you'd like to try to prove it

"The large majority of police-reported violent crimes do not involve a fi rearm. In 2006, a fi rearm was used against 2.4% of victims of violent crime. Physical force and threatening behaviour were much more common, accounting for three-quarters of all victimizations."
-- http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2008002-eng.pdf

"In 1995, the majority of violent crime victims did not encounter a weapon (72%). Only 2% of violent crime victims
encountered firearms."

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x1997007-eng.pdf

Anyone with a shred of common sense would have figured out that the majority of violent crimes do not involve a weapon, and that the majority of crimes do not involve violence.

That this is a surprise to you more or less proves that you are a moron.

Fuji, I actually GAVE you the Criminal Code of Canada reference here. Look up 41.2! Post it on here! Prove me wrong!

You're an idiot. In that case there are TWO separate crimes, the intruder will be charged with BOTH trespass AND assault. The charges will be counted that way too.

Specifically the number of B&E cases that are counted as assaults is, wait for it--ZERO.

Again, any statistics?? Any proof? Anything.....for if you have nothing, then the TPS crime stats are the only source provided thus far, and the stats indicate assaults are anything but rare......care to give me your definition of "rare"?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2008007-eng.pdf

Specifically of the 240629 assaults in Canada in 2007 only 53357 involved a weapon or caused bodily harm and only 3352 were aggravated assaults.

In a country of 33 million people from the point of view of any individual Canadian your odds of experiencing an assault causing bodily harm or an assault with a weapon are roughly two tenths of a percent.

That, in my books, is rare.

And now for the kill: From those statistics only 3% of B&E cases involve violence of any kind. 97% of B&E cases do not involve violence. Even when you experience an actual B&E the incidence of violence is rare.

As I said, and you moronically tried to dispute, the odds of this happening to you at all are rare, and if it does happen to you, even then, the odds of violence are low.

 

[fuji]

By the way, seth, I set you up. I had most of those stats ready and waiting yesterday when I posted. I just wanted to see how dumb you are--whether you would actually try and dispute the blindingly obvious--and you yes, you did try and dispute the blindingly obvious.

But oh yeah I did "make up" all those statitics myself: I secretly bribed statistics Canada to compile and publish those reports just so I could call you a moron.

Next time you want to debate something with me be a reasonable person and apply some common sense to what you write. Take reasonable positions. Do not dispute common sense points.

It will be less embarassing for you.

 

[333conan]

Again, if someone breaks into my house I have every right to fear for my life and every right to take action. I'm not about to sit down and debate with the intruder, he will be given fair warning to leave the premises or face repercussions with whatever I have close by.

I couldn't have said it better myself Sheik. Like I said before, it's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6. Not that a person who kills an intruder should be charged at all. he should get a tax credit for doing society a favour.

 

[fuji]

Every time someone breaks in, they usually have a weapon. Sometimes its a gun, sometimes its a crow bar.

I've already posted the statistics--your odds of encountering ANY kind of violence from an intruder in your home are vanishingly low. Even if you ARE a victim of a B&E there's only a 3% chance that it will be violent--in 97% of B&E's there is no violence whatsoever. If you disagree it's your word against statistics canada--guess who people are going to believe.

By the way, where is your evidence that B&E perpetrators "usually" have a weapon? The numbers I posted suggest that even when there is a violent encounter 75% of the time they do not have a weapon. I would not that "usually".

 

[seth gecko]

Hey KKelso!!

Did this thread prove to be of any value towards the debate with your collegue? Or did it just spiral out of control and prove kinda useless in the end.

And to answer your original question - I was just kidding around when I originally said #1 & Sicilian, but it's #5 for me & 1st generation Canadian of mixed European descent.

 

[binderman]

The problem is that most people still look at guns as only able to do harm. Guns saves lives. Look at the number of how many deaths were prevented in the US by the good guys from the bad guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-wBwpL-pIE




and here is an excellent detailed and short video that goes through the standard anti gun talking points

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

 

[fuji]

but it's #5 for me & 1st generation Canadian of mixed European descent.

If you do that in ALL cases where someone enters your home with a gun then you are a criminal.

Post #1 leaves out the details necessary to know whether or not the man is a threat at that point, whether you have an ability to retreat without risk, and so on. In real life obvoiusly those details would be known.

The only correct answer to the question is "it depends" since not enough information was provided to know whether or not there was a real threat.

 

[buttercup]

If we're strictly talking morals and not legalities, I would approach the question like this.

Think of the intruder as if he were a bear. (And thank your lucky stars you happen to have a bear-killing weapon with you.)

Now, morally, we don't kill living things needlessly, including bears. But if I conclude that the bear is a threat to my person, and if I can't think of any other way to remove the threat, then there is no moral objection to my killing the bear.

What if I can think of another way to remove or escape the threat, but I kill the bear anyway? It is very clear that that is morally wrong.

What if a reasonable person can think of an obvious way to remove or escape the threat, but I, in the heat of the moment, did not think of it? Again very clearly, it is still morally ok for me to kill the bear.

As far as the moral question is concerned, I can't see the difference between the armed intruder and the bear. Except, perhaps, why is the answer a very simple one for the bear, but not at all simple for the man?