Crime Prevention Tactic?

I heard a radio talk show mention how a judge suggested that people whose home is broken into and don't have a means to defend themselves (no gun) should be charged a fee for the police to come out. And conversely, if they shoot the criminal in the act they should be given a check--since the criminal won't be taking up money in court, in jail etc.

1) would this reduce crime? 2) would this reduce costs? 3) would you support it? 4) would it be a morally responsible law?

[Scott]

Wouldn't it make more sense to fine the criminal rather than the victim to recoup the costs of sending the police to deal with the crime? To fund the cost of police work stemming in part from investigations that do not lead to a conviction, i.e. when the criminal gets away, wouldn't it make more sense to increase the fines on the other criminals who do get caught than to charge the victims? That is, assuming the victim is not responsible via some kind of negligence or otherwise wasting police time with frivolous requests.

1) would this reduce crime?

I doubt it. It might encourage people to not report crime, leading to even worse enforcement and a so-called free-for-all for criminals.

2) would this reduce costs?

Paying people to shoot criminals would increase costs, clearly. Charging victims would have the direct impact of increasing revenue, but I bet would actually raise net costs overall via the indirect effect of enabling crime and hindering enforcement. Incidentally, a shooting even in self-defense would likely cost more, even directly speaking, in terms of police work than a routine burglary investigation. A lot of expensive experts and red-tape is involved in any homicide.

3) would you support it?

No, I would not support the general policy of paying tax dollars to people who shoot alleged criminals as some kind of reward for making less police work.

4) would it be a morally responsible law?

Define "morally responsible".

Wouldn't it make more sense to fine the criminal rather than the victim to recoup the costs of sending the police to repair the crime?

I can't possibly see how.

First, the purpose of the law is obviously to encourage people to own guns so that they can defend themselves. Fining criminals does nothing at all to facilitate this desired goal.

Second, criminals are already punished for committing crimes--including fines. So what you're basically saying seems to be, wouldn't it make more sense to start doing what we already do in order to prevent crime?

Third, while harsher penalties for criminals are almost certainly an effective deterent, I don't see fines as an effective means of accomplishing this unless you have some way of collecting. Take a check bouncer to court and they will probably find in your favor, fine the guy and issue a court order for him to pay you fines and restitution. But if he doesn't voluntarily pay that restitution, you often have no legal way of collecting it. The same is basically true for the criminals. Short of instituting a system of debt based slavery, I don't see any effective way of enforcing the fining of criminals, who are being sent away to prison for a long time (possibly life). And that's if they're caught... Most criminals are not caught. So you're basically suggesting that we should fine unknown people. What? Should we take out an add in the local paper?

Will the person who shot and killed Mr. Ed please send $500 to the department of criminal fines?

I doubt it. It might encourage people to not report crime, leading to even worse enforcement and a so-called free-for-all for criminals.

Okay, I can see reluctance to call the police as a possible influence for those people who don't own guns. But I don't see it leading to a criminal free-for-all, since the criminals wouldn't know who had the guns and who didn't. Also, since the overall trend, despite the reluctance to call the cops would be for more people to own guns, the criminal would know that more people would have guns and many more would be willing to use it to defend themselves and their property. So I don't see any way there could be a significant tendency towards increased criminal activity.

It may lead to a new industry... One which does a search to see if a homeowner is also a gun owner... so the criminals would know who to rob and who not to... which would also lead to more gun sales, as people endeavored not to be the neighborhood patsy. lol.

Perhaps a more effective strategy would be to pay people a small subsidy to purchase a gun. Say a tax break. This would reduce the reluctance factor, while also reducing the cost of a gun. $500 for a dirt-cheap gun is more than I really want to pay, which is the only reason why I don't currently own a gun.

2) would this reduce costs?

Not that costs are the primary concern, but I think it would very obviously reduce costs. The person who shot the would-be criminal would receive a percentage of the cost that it would have taken the government to give the criminal a trial and then house them in a prison for x number of years. With $1,000/day being a conservative estimate of the cost of housing a prisoner, I think there's virtually NO CHANCE that it would do less than break even.

Assuming it did reduce costs and/or crime, cops could then be employed in more productive efforts, such as man-on-the-street PR positions, and educational efforts to make people more aware of how to defend themselves and their property... which again would lead to more reluctance by criminals to commit crimes, making the program cumulatively effective over time.

Incidentally, a shooting even in self-defense would likely cost more, even directly speaking, in terms of police work than a routine burglary investigation. A lot of expensive experts and red-tape is involved in any homicide.

This is actually a pretty good point. The shooting would require at least some investigative effort to ensure that people don't start staging roberies, say, in order to "legally" shoot someone they dislike.

However, unless there was some reason to suspect foul-play, I don't see why the shooting would require such an in-depth investigation as you seem to imply. Real-world police work doesn't much resemble CSI. Not every gun that is fired requires a ballistics testing. Without some reason to suspect otherwise, the case could be closed pretty quickly... and $800 a day (or so) can pay for a lot of extra spending anyway.

This, of course, depends largely on how the other laws are handled. This law... in an otherwise permissive (criminal friendly) framework of laws... would obviously be an economic and moral disaster. But supported by other sensible (tough on crime) laws it would potentially be effective, I think.

3) would you support it?

I don't think I would support a law that paid people to shoot would-be criminals trying to commit crimes in their homes... but I would definitely support a law that found some sensible way to encouraged people to buy guns for home defense. For instance, the tax break idea would probably be something I would support. I would also support any changes in the law that made it more difficult for criminals to abuse the system by say suing a shooter for shooting them, or any other number of the ways laws are currently written to favor the criminal in morally irresponsible ways.

I heard a radio talk show mention how a judge suggested that people whose home is broken into and don't have a means to defend themselves (no gun) should be charged a fee for the police to come out. And conversely, if they shoot the criminal in the act they should be given a check--since the criminal won't be taking up money in court, in jail etc.

1) would this reduce crime? 2) would this reduce costs? 3) would you support it? 4) would it be a morally responsible law?

Lol.

The Judge is a gun nut clearly and not one to lead by example. Crime would not be reduced as has been witnessed recently in New Zealand with our police recently having easier access to firearms (permitted to carry them in the car not on their person). The cry went out because criminals are more and more inclined to arm themselves and use firearms in the commission of crime. Police being (more armed than before) has had no effect on violence crimes, which continue to rise in numbers.

More access to firearms does not reduce firearms related crime, be the increased access be to the good guys or the bad guys.

The likelihood of a firearm being used in something like a burglary increases with householders having guns for protection. The householders will then if confronted instead of aquiescing and their being no injury, is far more likely to use their firearm for the purpose for which they bought it and cause injury or death to themselves or somebody else, or force an intruder to use their firearm with similar outcomes.

So what? The cost of treating more gunshot injuries would rise as a consequence, as would the cost of subsequent court action to establish if the under pressure split second decision making of an non-professional untrained person discharging a firearm at another person was lawful or not.

So as to whether I would support such a law or find such a law morally resonsible? No. Re-victimisation and punishing a victim for the criminal actions of another seems a little off the mark. How about showing the criminal how civilised people live and behave in society by example, and then taking action against that person if that person chooses to ignore that example and commit crime.

So no, no, no and no.

Paul

Crime would not be reduced as has been witnessed recently in New Zealand with our police recently having easier access to firearms (permitted to carry them in the car not on their person). The cry went out because criminals are more and more inclined to arm themselves and use firearms in the commission of crime. Police being (more armed than before) has had no effect on violence crimes, which continue to rise in numbers.

First, these police still aren't armed. They now have access to the ability to be armed, if they need to go back to their car while a criminal is shooting at them. lol. Second, I think it's quite obvious that giving the police more access to guns is not even remotely close to the same dynamics as arming private citizens in their own homes. Knowing that the policeman who arrests me for breaking into your home and shooting you will have the ability to go get a gun when I start shooting at him (while he's trying to arrest me) is not even close to the same thing as knowing that the person I'm trying to rob is likely to have a gun, and be willing to shoot me when I try to rob them.

However, your comments do allude to something that I tend to agree with--which is that there is not a perfect 1-to-1-correlation between gun ownership and (violent) crime rates. This, however, is so obvious that it should go without saying. Many factors are involved, including: population densities, cultural norms, and the permissiveness of other laws.

What we do know is that laws (and policies) that make it harder on criminals are very effective in reducing crime. That is the whole purpose of such laws. If they weren't effective we'd just say do whatevery you want; use your own best judgement. For example, when Rudi Guliani became the mayor of New York City crime was out of control. There were an average of 5 murders every day and 10,000 felonies every week. Crime was reduced significantly by enacting laws that were tough on all crime (including petty crimes) and policies that focused on the individual accountability of all police officers and all police stations. Clearly, there were multiple factors that drove the reductions, but altogether they achieved one of the most dramatic deductions in crime rates in America's history.

As I've said, you can't drop laws like the ones the judge proposed into an the middle of a crime permissive environment and exited it to just work like magic. On the other hand, I think the evidence makes it equally clear that it could be one of the factors that contribute to dramatic reductions in both costs and crime rates. Such a law would have a fairly dramatic influence on the crime rate 1) because there would be fewer criminals to commit crimes; 2) criminals tend to socialize with other criminals and they talk. So they're going to hear about their fellow scum who have been shot.

This fact is rather significant because 74% of convicted burglers who were surveyed (in one study) indicated that the biggest reason they avoided robbing when someone was at home was because they feared being shot. And 60% of all felons indicated a strong reluctance to "mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

Moreover, we have a number of real-world cases that demonstrate a similar empirical truth being verified in the real world. For example, in Orlando, FL, the police department set up a program to teach women how to use firearms--leading directly to an 88% drop in the rape rate. Similarly, Kennesaw, GA passed an ordinance requiring households to have a gun, and within 7 months the burglry rate fell 89%. These are just a few of the possible examples I could have used. And in most cases, the differences are rather dramatic and favor gun ownership. 88-89% is not a small change by any measure.

Now, obviously, the policies suggested by this judge (somewhat tongue in cheek, I suspect) are obviously designed to encourage home owners to purchase a gun and to inform criminals that they are likely to be used. And in this respect, criminals are just like rich tax payers (and other people): if they don't like where they live, they can move. That's one reason why the liberal policy of raising taxes too high never manages to actually increase revenues. And, in much the same way, criminals who live in an environment that is hostile to thier efforts will tend to move as well.

Furthermore, I think all the stistical evidence supports this notion as well. For example, there have literally been millions of cases where a gun was used for self defense and stopped a crime--usually without actually shooting the criminal, but just by firing the gun or even just referring to it. Given that 90% of VIOLENT crimes are committed WITHOUT a handgun, this is also much safer than many liberals try to pretend. Furthermore, since 93% of the guns used in violent crimes are obtained through unlawful means, it seems pretty clear that the ones who are hindered most by stricter gun laws are (almost exclusively) those who are NOT criminals.

Anyway, despite the rampantly anti-gun policies that dominate throughout much of the U.S. (including many of the most heavily populated regions) we saw that in 1981 there were 1,266 justifiable homicides by civilians using guns against criminals, compared to only 388 felons who were killed by police officers. And this is not an uncharacteristic a trend. So obviously the civilian population has done more than the police to thin the population of U.S. criminals. In liberal-minded cities, where bad policies breed new criminals faster than they can shoot each other, having a few less criminals isn't going to make all that significant a difference in the crime rate. But in all societies (including densely populated cenyers of liberal) the criminals are actually a fairly small percentage of the whole population. Particularly in a smaller community, killing a few such criminals will have a significant effect on the future rate of crime--since most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Say there are only 100 criminals in a small town; and further say that home owners shoot 2-3 of them per year for a period of 4-5 years. Assuming no other changes, that reduces the number of criminals by more than 10%. But again, criminals talk, and they can move. And, like other people, they are smart enough to manage the risks in their lives. So the actual reductions in crime would be much, much greater than this.

In fact, I would expect the reductions to be greater than the 88-89% from the examples I cited earlier. And there's simply no way that this massive reduction in crime rate would NOT reduce the costs of the police department.

The likelihood of a firearm being used in something like a burglary increases with householders having guns for protection.

Perhaps... it's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, since the only criminals willing to rob an arm man would tend to be the one's who have something to shoot back with. Still, the reduction in overall violent crime clearly outweighs this relatively minor factor. Besides, there's nothing in the Judge's proposal that forces the homeowner to use the gun they own. Thus, if they're safe haven has been compromised, they can easily resemble unarmed victims.

The cost of treating more gunshot injuries would rise as a consequence, as would the cost of subsequent court action to establish if the under pressure split second decision making of an non-professional untrained person discharging a firearm at another person was lawful or not.

this is typical liberal thinking... which almost always treats a situation as if it were a static object. For example, they suppose that if you increase taxes 10% you'll get 10% more revenue; ignoring the fact that the real result is always that the job creating people being taxed will simply chose to move or they will create fewer jobs so they have to pay less... the net result usually being that less revenue is generated. Even the consumate communist Obama has blatantly acknowledged this fact, when he stated that the tax hikes (that he promised wouldn't come) were not to increase revenues but were for purposes of fairness. lol. So how is it fair to make life worse for everyone? I ask.

Your statement employs the same twisted logic. There would not be any significant increase in treating gunshot wounds, because: 1) the number of violent crimes (including shooting people with guns) would be reduced when the criminals were killed (or they stopped committing the crimes in that area). Thus, there would be fewer and fewer criminals to shoot each year. 2) There wouldn't be ANY court actions to establish if the shooting was lawful. If the person shot was in your house, and they were attempting to commit a crime... then the shooting is lawful. Period. The only question is whether or not you should get paid. ... my guess is that if the criminal isn't dead, you don't get paid--because you haven't saved the system any money--and you're getting paid a percentage of what you save the criminal system, remember?

Again, that's why I've repeatedly said that you couldn't possibly drop this law into an environment of liberal-think and expect to get positive results. The two are inherently incompatibe. lol.

[Scott]

Thanks for your reply Antone. Please excuse the piece-by-piece replies below:

Wouldn't it make more sense to fine the criminal rather than the victim to recoup the costs of sending the police to repair the crime?

First, the purpose of the [proposed] law is obviously to encourage people to own guns so that they can defend themselves. Fining criminals does nothing at all to facilitate this desired goal.

The purpose of the proposed law could have been to accumulate a pile of poop the size of Mount Everest, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. I think fining criminals to recoup the costs of police-work and NOT fining non-gun-owning victims makes more sense than encouraging gun ownership let alone than encouraging it via the state-sponsored robbery of taxation, with the goals in mind being more fundamental -- namely effectiveness and cost efficiency at protecting victims, preventing victimization and limiting government spending -- than the proposed midway-goal of encouragement of gun ownership.

Second, criminals are already punished for committing crimes--including fines. So what you're basically saying seems to be, wouldn't it make more sense to start doing what we already do in order to prevent crime?

If you replace the word 'start' with the word 'be' and then at the end of the sentence add 'rather than start doing the judge's proposals', then yes.

I can also express this with an equation. Let C represent how much you and/or the judge would want to fine the criminal(s) and let U represent how much you want to charge the unarmed victims. I am suggesting that we fine the unarmed victims 0 and that we fine the criminals (C + U). That is, rather than what you and the judge propose.

Third, while harsher penalties for criminals are almost certainly an effective deterent, I don't see fines as an effective means of accomplishing this unless you have some way of collecting. Take a check bouncer to court and they will probably find in your favor, fine the guy and issue a court order for him to pay you fines and restitution. But if he doesn't voluntarily pay that restitution, you often have no legal way of collecting it. The same is basically true for the criminals.

The government can use wage garnishment on any income streams or future wages, much like it does with child support and tax debts. The government can seize any assets or use leins to collect these debts, again much like it does to recoup unpaid taxes, and they are quite able to find hidden funds such as when someone being sued for unpaid taxes or criminal fines signs their house or car or hands over a big check to a friend or family member to avoid having it seized. Also, if the criminal makes bail and then earns return of that bail by not running away, then that bail actually be put towards any unpaid debt. I do not doubt the debt will be collectible assuming the criminal has (1) access to funds equal to or less than the debt and (2) has been caught and convicted of the crime.

Short of instituting a system of debt based slavery, I don't see any effective way of enforcing the fining of criminals, who are being sent away to prison for a long time (possibly life).

In the previous paragraph I named those effective ways, but incidentally I fully support debt-based slavery for prisoners and convicts assuming they are in for an act of significant victimization (such as rape, murder or vandalism) as opposed to some consensual crime a.k.a. victimless crime (like drug possession, prostitution or flag-burning).

And that's if they're caught... Most criminals are not caught. So you're basically suggesting that we should fine unknown people. What? Should we take out an add in the local paper?

No. As I wrote in the second sentence of my previous post: "To fund the cost of police work stemming in part from investigations that do not lead to a conviction, i.e. when the criminal gets away, wouldn't it make more sense to increase the fines on the other criminals who do get caught than to charge the victims?"

Do you have a credible source for your claim that most criminals are not caught? Do you have a more specific statistic regarding the percentage of criminals that are caught versus the ones that are not? Do these statistics address the issue of criminals who commit multiple crimes but only get caught for some or one of them; in other words are they counting as mostly 'uncaught' criminals who do get caught but convicted for something else?

Okay, I can see reluctance to call the police as a possible influence for those people who don't own guns. But I don't see it leading to a criminal free-for-all, since the criminals wouldn't know who had the guns and who didn't. Also, since the overall trend, despite the reluctance to call the cops would be for more people to own guns, the criminal would know that more people would have guns and many more would be willing to use it to defend themselves and their property. So I don't see any way there could be a significant tendency towards increased criminal activity.

It may lead to a new industry... One which does a search to see if a homeowner is also a gun owner... so the criminals would know who to rob and who not to... which would also lead to more gun sales, as people endeavored not to be the neighborhood patsy.

[emphasis added]

We seem to agree on the main point here as represented by the first sentence in this quote, but incidentally these two paragraphs seem to contradict.

Perhaps a more effective strategy would be to pay people a small subsidy to purchase a gun. Say a tax break. This would reduce the reluctance factor, while also reducing the cost of a gun. $500 for a dirt-cheap gun is more than I really want to pay, which is the only reason why I don't currently own a gun.

IF the credible science and statistics convincingly show that gun ownership causes a significant decrease in non-consensual crime and an increase in overall safety of non-criminals, then I would consider supporting such a proposal. If also it could be shown that the increase in safety and reduction in crime reduced government spending as much or more than the cost of paying out all these subsidies, then it would seem to be a no-brainer. I think we can agree on that. Can we also agree on the inverse: IF the credible science and statistics do not show that gun ownership does not cause a significant decrease in non-consensual crime and an increase in overall safety of non-criminals and thus presumably would cost more than it would save as a government expenditure, then we would both agree in our opposition of such a proposal?

Incidentally, a shooting even in self-defense would likely cost more, even directly speaking, in terms of police work than a routine burglary investigation. A lot of expensive experts and red-tape is involved in any homicide.

This is actually a pretty good point. The shooting would require at least some investigative effort to ensure that people don't start staging roberies, say, in order to "legally" shoot someone they dislike.

However, unless there was some reason to suspect foul-play, I don't see why the shooting would require such an in-depth investigation as you seem to imply. Real-world police work doesn't much resemble CSI. Not every gun that is fired requires a ballistics testing. Without some reason to suspect otherwise, the case could be closed pretty quickly... and $800 a day (or so) can pay for a lot of extra spending anyway.

Where are you getting your numbers? How much do you estimate the average burglary costs to investigate? How much do you think the average homicide in alleged self-defense costs to investigate both in general and in cases "without some reason to suspect otherwise"? These numbers seem crucial to your proposal but I see no reason to believe that the latter is less than the former considering we can agree that in general in the status quo that homicide investigations cost way to investigate and/or judicially process on a per-incident basis than burglaries.

Keep in mind, whenever someone so much as gets pulled over for speeding in my town they send a second police car to the scene as routine policy. If your child dials 911 and you immediately call back and say it was an accident, a cop will still rush to your house. If you call in and tell them you just wasted some burglar -- though your neighbors hearing gunshots will probably have already called -- they won't just send over some intern to write down your statement which is much more like what they might for a mere burglary report that is often mostly a formality for insurance.

This, of course, depends largely on how the other laws are handled. This law... in an otherwise permissive (criminal friendly) framework of laws... would obviously be an economic and moral disaster. But supported by other sensible (tough on crime) laws it would potentially be effective, I think.

That's one way of looking at it, but I look at it the other way. If the environment is not criminal friendly, than what is the big need for guns-as-self-defensive which present their own danger much more extreme and, in suburbia, much more frequent than burglary by stranger.

we saw that in 1981 there were 1,266 justifiable homicides by civilians using guns against criminals, compared to only 388 felons who were killed by police officers. And this is not an uncharacteristic a trend. So obviously the civilian population has done more than the police to thin the population of U.S. criminals.

I think this is a non-sequitur. Don't we also need the numbers of criminals subdued via non-lethal police arrest versus non-lethal citizen arrest to get the total ratio?

But in all societies (including densely populated cenyers of liberal) the criminals are actually a fairly small percentage of the whole population.

Do you have a credible source for that statistic? Do you have an exact estimate of the percentage of the population that is criminal versus non-criminal as opposed to just saying it is 'fairly small'? What is meant by criminal? Is someone who speeds on the highway a criminal? Is a peaceful but undocumented immigrant working for sub-minimum-wage a criminal? Is a pacifist marijuana possessor a criminal? Is someone who tells a little lie worth a few bucks on their tax return a criminal? Is someone who steals soap from a hotel room a criminal? Even discounting civil infractions, speeding tickets and even drugs, according to the sources I found everyone is a criminal.

In fact, I would expect the reductions to be greater than the 88-89% from the examples I cited earlier. And there's simply no way that this massive reduction in crime rate would NOT reduce the costs of the police department.

The rest of your argument seems to flow validly enough from statistical premises like that your proposal would reduce crime by nearly 90%. Of course, I think most people would find your argument unsound because most people would disagree with that estimation. Do you have any sources to directly support that statistic? What is the mathematical equation you are using to take the numbers from the sources you do have to get to that number?

The cost of treating more gunshot injuries would rise as a consequence, as would the cost of subsequent court action to establish if the under pressure split second decision making of an non-professional untrained person discharging a firearm at another person was lawful or not.

There would not be any significant increase in treating gunshot wounds, because: 1) the number of violent crimes (including shooting people with guns) would be reduced when the criminals were killed (or they stopped committing the crimes in that area). Thus, there would be fewer and fewer criminals to shoot each year

What percentage of criminals who are incapacitated in the process of criminal behavior due to being shot by a civilian acting in defense are thereby killed as opposed to survive?

What about PaulNZ's other previous point, which I think is wise, that increased gun ownership in would-be victims would increase the likelihood that a victim gets shot or otherwise severely hurt during the course of a burglary (or other victimization)? Surely we agree most burglars (and other criminals) do not want to shoot anyone, right? Surely we agree gun-toting victims are not all amazing soldiers. We can imagine some people will be saved from burglary as a result of increased gun-ownership because either (1) the would-be burglars decide not to burglarize or (2) the would-be burglars were killed by gunshot in a previous burglary from which they would have escaped without being caught by the police if gun-ownership had not been increased. We can imagine a lesser amount of people are saved the same two ways but not merely from burglary but from being violently hurt by particularly violent/sadistic burglars who would have hurt them during the burglary despite them being unarmed and not fighting back. But what I think PaulNZ is saying with which I agree is that even if those are true that then we also have to consider the people who would have merely been the victim of insurance-covered burglary but saved from being violently hurt as a result of the involvement of guns in an otherwise relatively non-violent crime. This raises both a statistical question and a philosophical one. The statistical question, which to answer I suggest consulting sourced science, is how many burglaries would be prevented by an increase in gun-ownership including how many that would have been just burglaries as opposed to ones that would have been burglaries plus violent harm of the victim despite the victim being unarmed and not fighting back, and how many burglaries that would have been just burglaries will become burglaries in which the victim is violently hurt as a result of the involvement of guns and violently fighting back as a result of gun ownership. The philosophical question is how many burglaries without violence are worth the violent harm or even death of a victim. For instance, would you prefer to have 100 less insurance-covered burglaries but one more murder or vice versa?

. 2) There wouldn't be ANY court actions to establish if the shooting was lawful. If the person shot was in your house, and they were attempting to commit a crime... then the shooting is lawful. Period.

There would be court actions to establish if the person was in one's house, whether the person had permission to be in the house, whether the person was committing a crime, whether the circumstances of the commission of the crime warranted the gunshot (e.g. it generally wouldn't be considered lawful self-defense to shoot an unconscious or otherwise incapacitated but alive criminal in the head to kill him out of anger/revenge), and a myriad of other details.

I'm liable to be wrong, but you seem to me to be committing the special pleading fallacy. Shooting by those in legal possession of a gun in alleged self-defense, even when the alleged attacker is not hit, almost always lead to an arrest in jurisdictions all over the world. These are expensive to investigate and bring to trial. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. All the available statistics regarding how things work in the status quo seem to contradict the way you claim things would work in your hypothetical world under your proposed policies, but what reason do we have to not only reject the status quo's statistics but accept your proposed ones? Why would anyone believe in your proposed world that investigations of gunshots in proclaimed self-defense would suddenly become quick and cheap and not often lead to arrest or even trial?

The only question is whether or not you should get paid. ... my guess is that if the criminal isn't dead, you don't get paid--because you haven't saved the system any money--and you're getting paid a percentage of what you save the criminal system, remember?

I am still convinced that it would cost the system more if the criminal was dead than not, and least of all if the criminal simply hadn't been shot. Feel free to contact a few police departments and ask them to explain the difference in their policies regarding responding to a code of a burglary in which nobody has been violently hurt and their policy in regards to responding to a call of shots fired and someone being hit (e.g. how many uniforms do they send out, what is the salary of each uniform, etc.) and it'd be useful if they specified whether these policies where universal or circumstantial (e.g. is there a minimum/maximum number of uniforms sent to any shots fired call regardless of the specifics of the call); I'd genuinely be very interested in such a report.

Thanks Antone and Scott for very detailed posts. I apologise Antone for finding a little humour in the original post. I don't mean to offend but clearly, culturally speaking, New Zealand and the United States of America are poles apart with how firearms in the general populace are viewed by the general populace. Here you have a firearm if you are a farmer or a hunter and that is it outside of the law enforcement services and military services. For a person to have a firearm for self defence isn't even in our psyche, that seems too "wild west" to our way of thinking; hence the wee "lol".

A neighbour of mine is a hunter and up until 6 weeks ago had 2 high powered hunting rifles and a shotgun inside a gun safe in his house. His house was targetted for burglary by offenders BECAUSE he had firearms, which were the only things taken. Those weapons are now in our community, probably in the hands of one of the two outlaw motorcycle gangs we have in town. So there are many reasons why the proliferation of small arms in our communities are not a positive.

I have a decade of experience in the military followed by 14 years in law enforcement and have been in contact with the undesirables in society on an almost daily basis. I have been threatened with a firearm and had to draw a firearm in response to threats in the line of duty. I speak from my experience in my New Zealand culture and not from statistics, other than the general crime statistics released annually in NZ which as I say, show an increase in violence offending (decreases in many other areas of crime and generally overall crime is down). Antone, could you please provide the source and the context for the statistics you quoted? Much appreciated.

regards

Paul

I apologise Antone for finding a little humour in the original post.I don't mean to offend

Not a problem... I'm extremely difficult to offend, although I will defend my opinions vigorusly, lol. People often take that for having been offended, but it is not... And besides, it is a little funny, isn't it?

As I think I've stated, I suspect the judge was being a little "tongue in cheek" when he made the comments... Apparently he did receive a lot of flack from liberal media and such, for making the comments. But that doesn't prove he was serious, as the liberal media frequently takes comments out of context to discredit conservatives. So extorting a comment made in humor would not be out of character. On the other hand, the person who told this story (on the radio) claimed to be related to the judge, and he strongly supported gun ownership--so maybe not. Either way, I will admit that, even as a conservative who fully supports gun ownership, I think this idea is very close to being too extreme.

A neighbour of mine ... was targetted for burglary by offenders BECAUSE he had firearms.... Those weapons are now in our community, probably in the hands of one of the two outlaw motorcycle gangs we have in town. So there are many reasons why the proliferation of small arms in our communities are not a positive.

Interesting. I don't agree with your conclusions, but I do understand that gun ownership seems to make more sence in certain communities than it does in others. The community must have a foundation of conservative-minded law and social thinking. It sounds to me like this is not present in your town... and in large part, this is what has allowed the motorcycle ganages to move into your town.

In the U.S. we have a very similar situation on our border. Radical liberal policies (over generations) have created a situation where the Southern Border with Mexico is literally a war zone. One park area, for example, has been closed off to U.S. citizens because it has been taken over by Mexican drug lords. The governor of the state has requested military support to get the situation under control, and President Obama (in his typical hate-America first way) has rejected their plea... When asked why, his response was that he needs the situation on the border to get even worse so that he can pressure the people into passing mass immigration reform laws. In other words, turning millions of illegal-invading-combatants into legal, voting citizens. When a state passed a law that mirrors the federal law that Obamanation isn't enforcing (at the federal level) his administration sued the state to make them stop. And so forth.

My point is that, once the criminals are better armed than the police, the dynamics of the situation change radically.

My guess, however, is that if the military were called in and all police/military where required to carry guns on them at all times... and all motorcycle riders could be stopped (for any reason) and if a gun was found on them, the cop could shoot them dead... The motorcycle gang problem that your city has would be over in about a month or so. lol.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting this is the best solution. What I am saying is that your city HAS a motorcycle gang problem because your city has not passed responsible laws designed to adequately protect it's citizens. Situations like the gang (or the drug dealers occupying US parks) do not just happen spontaneously. They occur because of permissive liberal policies that encourage them to happen. Once such situations HAVE happened, the same types of laws that would have prevented the situations from happening are no longer adequate to get rid of the problem... you have to become even more extreme, or the problem will just continue and likely even get worse.

The question is: "Do the ends justify the means?"

Liberal Means Vs. Conservative Ends
Liberals seem to have a reputation as being the political faction who is most comfortable with the idea of letting the ends justify the means. I, however, disagree with this characterization, and would like to make the argument that it is actually conservatives who have earned this reputation.

For example, consider the Death Penalty issue. I believe that it is well-known (and common sense) that having an honorable and effective police force, in conjunction with harsh punishments for crimes--including the death penalty--is a very effective deterent of crime. Under these conditions, sometimes innocent people are wrongly convicted. Neither liberals nor conservatives like this fact, but it is the conservative who understands that the "greater good" that is accomplished by the ends (of such laws) are justified by the means, (which is to sacrifice an occasional innocent person so that everyone has a better life).

Similarly, no one likes the fact that there are poor people. Liberals do much to promote the myth of the "mean conservative" but the truth is that conservatives (generally speaking) give far more to charity than do their liberal counter-parts. Despite this, conservatives also know that some people will never do more work than they absolutely have to. Which means that no matter what you do, there will always be some poor with us, in any society. Conservatives realize that it is better to accept the means (that some people will always be poorer than others) in order to achieve the "greater good" of increased prosperity for all that comes when you let the rich keep more of what they have earned--so that they can earn more money by invest in companies that create more jobs. The ENDS are that everyone's ship rises in the economy's prosperous tides.

In both of these cases, liberals tend to focus more on the means--and they reject the idea that the means justifies the ends. As we saw clearly when Obama admitted that his increases on the rich were not designed to increase tax revenue, but were designe for "purposes of fairness."

There are, however, two perspectives to everything. When you focus on a specific desirable end... such as given in these two instances, then (I think) it is clearly conservatives who embrace the notion that the ends justifies the means. But when you focus on the means (i.e. when the ends is not a specific desirable outcome which promotes the general welfare, but is instead a personally desired outcome, that may or may not have any positive benefit for the general populace) then, the liberals are quite definitely the one's who embrace the notion that the ends justifies the means.

I think Obama is obviously the most radically liberal president in America's history, by far. And I've already demonstrated a couple of ways that he promotes this saying when the ends will accomplish his goal--even though it is not what is best for the general populace. For instance, I mentioned his support for taxes on the rich--even though he acknowledges that it will serve no benefit, other than to promote some nebulous idea of fairness. But again, how is it fairer to make everyone (especially the poor) suffer more so that you can feel good about stealing from job creaters to give to people who have no job. The means justifies the ends, not because the ends are generally more desirable, but because they are what Obama wants. SECOND example... is the border. The corrupt means which Obama is using is to create an environment where Americans are literally being killed and the constitution is being desecrated... but this "means" is justified because it accomplishes Obama's goal, which is to create more voters who will vote Democrat. It doesn't matter that more poor imigrants, who came to America by breaking the law, will create more local and national debt (as they drink from the welfare tit) and less social cohesion, etc. The corrupt means are justified by the (corrput) ends, because that end is a goal that will benefit Obama himself.

Another obvious example is the Global Warming Hoax that liberal have been perpetrating for the last several years. For example, Dr. Mann created the fradulent "Hockey Stick" graph, that has since been discredited as beyond bad science. Al Gore created that movie that was so blatantly fraudulent that a liberal judge ordered that it could not be shown in schools without a parent's signature on a letter that detailed 9 ways in which the movie was eggregiously wrong. (And he failed to list the vast majority of the errors contained in the movie. But Gore continues to promote Global Warming because if Cap-n-tax ever becomes law, he will become the first "green billioniare" because of all the companies he is tied to in this area. Obama spent billions on "green" businesses, many of which have since gone bankrupt, like Solindra... Yet he continues to support his choices, because he says that the means justifies the ends. What ends? Greater national debt? Extended depression? No, the ends is a new (less effective) kind of energy. Not because it would be better in any way for the general population--but rather because it is the goal he wants to accomplish.

As in many other areas, the liberals have even admitted openly (amongst themselves at least) that it doesn't matter whether or not Global Warming exists or not... what matters is that they are able to accomplish their ultimate goals.

Here then, is the distinction I see. --Gullible conservatives might supported policies they thought were designed to fight Global Warming, because they believed that not doing so could possibly lead to devasting consequences for the globe. --The liberal elite (as opposed to the useful idiots) proposed those policies and supported them, not because they thought they would save the globe, but because they thought this was an issue that could be used to support the policies they wanted to enact.

Antone, could you please provide the source and the context for the statistics you quoted?

Most of the statistics (as quoted in this forum) come from an article written by Walter E. Williams, More Guns Reduces Crime. Although I have read a good bit on this topic and seen similar statistics quoted elsewhere, as well.

I'll try to track down some more (point of origin) sources, so to speak... but I really don't want this to turn into a listing of various sources. I understand that there are many studies that have been done by liberal-think sorts that have reached various anti-gun conclusions--just as there are many examples that strongly support gun ownership. So I'll admit that having a "source" isn't always the best indication of truth. And I'm really not all that interested in having this thread become an analyisis of the reasoning of various "sources" . That's something that we can all do for ourselves, if we want to.

-- Updated Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:46 pm to add the following --

Thanks for your reply Antone. Please excuse the piece-by-piece replies

Nothing to excues, that's actually how I like to respond, and how I prefer other people to respond.

...via the state-sponsored robbery of taxation...

Well, this is a step in the right direction, getting a liberal to agree that taxation is a form of robbery, lol. However, given that the proposal would reduce costs, it could be argued that it would obviously not be an increase in the current amount of robbery that is already going on. In fact, even if the costs did go up, it would not be such an increase unless the taxes actually went up. It is obviously the tax that is robbery, not the expenditure of those taxes.

The government can use wage garnishment on any income streams or future wages, much like it does with child support and tax debts.

Talk about your vigorous encouragement to commit crime. As a law abiding citizen, I'd probably take to crime as a full time way of life myself if the government tried to do that to me.

The government can seize any assets or use leins to collect these debts

Yes, typical of a liberal to encourage more ways for the government to steal our private property, lol. Any method possible to turn us more and more into social slaves. It starts with removing the ability to defend ourselves against corrupt government, and then moves to stealing our property through higher taxes, and now confiscating personal assets above and beyond taxes.

Again, not for the greater good of lower crime, but for the personal goal of reducing the number of guns we have to defend ourselves with.

Seriously though, it is not an entirely uninteresting idea... but I remain unconvinced that it would be anywhere near as effective as the reverse strategy. And it would clearly undermine more personal rights.

In the previous paragraph I named those effective ways, but incidentally I fully support debt-based slavery for prisoners and convicts assuming they are in for an act of significant victimization (such as rape, murder or vandalism) as opposed to some consensual crime a.k.a. victimless crime (like drug possession, prostitution or flag-burning).

I said short of instituting a system of debt based slavery, lol.

No. As I wrote in the second sentence of my previous post: "To fund the cost of police work stemming in part from investigations that do not lead to a conviction, i.e. when the criminal gets away, wouldn't it make more sense to increase the fines on the other criminals who do get caught than to charge the victims?"

No... aside from stripping away more personal rights and responsibilities... it leads to an environment that makes it more difficult (than it already is) for a criminal to leave their life of crime.

I will admit that it would probably serve as an effective deterrent for people who have yet to commit crimes, but not more so than my proposal.

Do you have a credible source for your claim that most criminals are not caught?

No... but since you asked I've now done what you could very easily have done. I did a search, took virtually the first source I came to and applied a little rudimentary logic to it.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A ... 958AA3ug19
Nationwide in 2006, [only] 44.3%of violent crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. Of the violent crimes (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), murder had the highest percentage of offenses cleared at 60.7%. Of the property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft), larceny-theft had the highest percentage of offenses cleared at 17.4%.

Now, I've already made my case, but notice that these numbers are for [arrests] and [cleared by exceptional means]. But we know (are you going to ask for sources again? Cause you're not getting them.) that some erroneous arrests are made... and further [cleared by exceptional means] is when some legal snafu prevents a known criminal from being arrested or tried. Thus, we must lower the numbers further. Also, we know that not all crimes are reported, (and this number is often alarmingly high) which again lowers the numbers further. And of those cases that make it to trial, a significant number of them are either declared a mistrial or the suspect is found NOT guilty. Which further reduces the number of criminals who can be "punished" for their crimes. etc.

Similarly alarming statistic are available for serial killers:

wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_serial_kill ... are_caught
currently as many as 1000 serial killers are estimated to be at large. In the past 20 years, 160 have been identified or captured

Do these statistics address the issue of criminals who commit multiple crimes but only get caught for some or one of them; in other words are they counting as mostly 'uncaught' criminals who do get caught but convicted for something else?

This is a valid point. Most criminals commit multiple crimes, and so they are eventually caught for something. So to capture the true intent of my comment, I should have said something more like most crimes go unpunished, which I think is pretty obvious.

Perhaps a more effective strategy would be to pay people a small subsidy to purchase a gun. Say a tax break. This would reduce the reluctance factor, while also reducing the cost of a gun. $500 for a dirt-cheap gun is more than I really want to pay, which is the only reason why I don't currently own a gun.

If also it could be shown that the increase in safety and reduction in crime reduced government spending as much or more than the cost of paying out all these subsidies, then it would seem to be a no-brainer. I think we can agree on that. Can we also agree on the inverse: IF the credible science and statistics do not show that gun ownership does not cause a significant decrease in non-consensual crime and an increase in overall safety of non-criminals and thus presumably would cost more than it would save as a government expenditure, then we would both agree in our opposition of such a proposal?

With respect to this proposal, and it's benefits to cost and effectiveness, I agree.

However, I do not agree with respect to gun ownership in general. It is a man's God-Given right to defend himself, including with the use of a gun. It's the government's goal to figure out how to deal with that reality as best it can, regardless of any other situations. Further, the main purpose of owning a gun (self defense not withstanding) is to defend one's self against a tyrannical government. An armed populace is much harder to subdue. And it is the only reason that America won the Revolutionary war and ridded itself of a tyrannical King. Unfortunately, tyranny is rapidly on the rise again, and private gun ownership may once again be called on to play a significant role. As Patrick Henry said,

The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety... Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

The bottom line, then, is that I do support any law that encourages gun ownership... and I reject any law that suppresses it. Not only are such laws against "natural law" they are also clearly against the US constitution. So there are many reasons to oppose them.

Paying people to shoot criminals is a good bit more than that, however... and so I do not feel all that inclined to support that part of the judges proposal. Also, the part about fining a citizen for NOT owning a gun violates the persons right to freely choose... so again, I do not feel all that inclined to support this law for that reason as well.

The argument, however, has not gone much into whether or not it is a "moral" law... but has only dealt (so far) with whether or not it would be effective. Which I think the evidence clearly indicates that it would be, in most (but not necessarily all) situation.

...whenever someone so much as gets pulled over for speeding in my town they send a second police car to the scene as routine policy. If your child dials 911 and you immediately call back and say it was an accident, a cop will still rush to your house.

When police have stupid policies you have to pay for those stupid policies. But if they don't then you don't. Also, part of the reason that these sorts of policies may be needed is because of a history of permissive policies that has made them necessary.

Still, you are not totally wrong. The cost of a single shooting would be more than the cost of one burglary... but the burglary must be subtracted from the cost of the shooting... and then, on top of that, you must subtract the costs of future burglaries that aren't committed--either because the repeat offending criminal is no longer alive, or because his friends heard what happened to him and have decided to move their business elsewhere.

That's one way of looking at it, but I look at it the other way. If the environment is not criminal friendly, than what is the big need for guns-as-self-defensive which present their own danger much more extreme and, in suburbia, much more frequent than burglary by stranger.

first, because gun ownership can be a big part of creating that sort of environment. And second, because high crime zones don't happen instantaneously. They are trends that usually develop slowly over time. Sometimes, a cataclysmic event (such as a race riot, etc.) can permanently change the dynamics of a city's crime rate--as it did locally here in Cincinnati. Twice, about 30 years apart. Most recently, the crime rate went from about 5 murders a year to almost 200 murders a year, which is pretty high for a city of about 1/2 million. Most of these are gang members shooting each other.

Which adds another ironic twist to the whole debate: If one criminal shoots another criminal while they are both in the act of committing a crime, does he still get paid? lol.

Do you have a credible source for that statistic?

I've seen statistics reported over the years, but I didn't bother to look up any sources. I figure it's just one of those common sense things again. And, like I said, this is just a generality. If you want to counter argue the point, why don't you do some simple web searches to disprove the "obvious". One easy way to do this is to take the overall crime rate in a given locale and divide it by the number of citizens... In the US (a relatively high crime nation) the national crime rate is generally less than 3700 crimes per 100,000 residents, even during trends of higher crime rates, which I believe is only 3.7%. Which I think qualifies as relatively small. Now, assuming that every crime is committed by a different person, and assuming that the crime rate under reports crime by a factor of 10X... there would still only be 37 thousand criminals in every 100,000 residents... which still means that only about 1/3 are criminals. And we've both indicated that most criminals ARE repeat offenders.

What is meant by criminal?

Obviously, since we're talking about violent and dangerous crimes... I would be talking about people who have committed violent and dangerous crimes.

everyone is a criminal.

While this may be an interesting article, it isn't really pertinent. It's arguments are largely semantical and without merit to your apparent counter-argument. In fact, if you apply sound logic, I think this clearly supports my argument. Since (according to this article) every law abiding citizen has within them the mental make up to violate the law under certain circumstances. All the more reason, then, to make the circumstances that we find ourselves hostile to breaking the law. Becasue (according to the article) we don't obey laws because we're good people, we obey them because the environment encourages us to do so. Obviously, more permissive laws encourage us to be criminals more than harsh laws.

I don't think disobeying a petty or invalid law makes you a criminal. In fact, a 1979 survey revealed taht some 73% of Americans would refuse to comply with handgun prohibitions. I would be one of those. I don't own a handgun now, so I won't say I'd go buy a gun... but it would NOT be the prohibition that disuaded me from doing so. Furthermore, I would NOT be a criminal for possessing a gun. The "criminals" are those people who passed the law. They took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and they are clearly violating their oath when they passed this (general) prohibition law. The constitution is the highest law of the land (in America)... so no law that is in violation of it is a valid law. Moreover, by owning a gun, I am exercising my "GOD-GIVEN" right... which no governments law can supercede. So even if the constitution didn't support private gun ownership, I would still not be a criminal. My government would simply be a thugocracy, which needed to be brough under control--preferrably by peaceful and lawful means. But if necessary by revolution. That's the how and why of the founding of America. The people have rights. Those rights are NOT the governments to give. If the government violates their trust in allowing us to exercise these "natural rights" then (as free men) we have the responsibility to reform our government. Again, that's where gun ownership comes in. Without the ownership of guns, the people have no teeth to keep their corrupt government in check... which is why one of the first things that corrupt and tyrannical governments do is to "disable" the right of the people to own guns.

What percentage of criminals who are incapacitated in the process of criminal behavior due to being shot by a civilian acting in defense are thereby killed as opposed to survive?

All that get paid.

The better question is whether it is desirable to encourage people to kill criminals. According to the Williams article I mentioned, most of the 2.5 million crimes that were averted because the potential victim had a gun, most were averted without actually shooting the would-be criminal. As the article you offered suggests, I think most people who commit crimes could be productive citizens, if they wanted to be. And having an abundance of difficult targets is a strong incentive to make the attempt to be productive. In general, though, I disagree with the article. there are plenty of people who have incentive and opportunity to commit crimes (even violent crimes) and yet, for one reason or another, choose not to do so. Conversely, there are people who have no reason to do it but none-the-less choose to do it.

There would be court actions to establish if the person was in one's house...

I can't see why. Unless there was some reason to suspect that the person had conspired to commit murder using the law as an "alibi", there would be no reason to investigate. When there are restrictive gun laws, and a person buys a gun, someone looks into all the details of how and why the person bought the gun. But if there aren't any restrictive laws on this, then no one bothers to look into why and how you bought a gun. So unless there was some reason to supect... say shooter had exchanged words with the "criminal"... say this was the shooters 3rd shooting in 2 years... say the shooter was related to the "criminal"... etc. There are a number of things that would raise concern and require looking into... but a shooting by itself would not be an investigatable issue... because it would not be an offense. The laws purpose is obviously to encourage such shootings... it would be down-right schitzophrenic of the government to reward the shooting with one hand and harrass the shooter with the other. Not that many of the things governments do aren't intensely schitzopheric in nature. But clearly, such a strategy would be self-defeating. And it's one of those Liberal policies I mentioned that can't be in place if the law is to have a reasonable chance of working as intended.

Shooting by those in legal possession of a gun in alleged self-defense, even when the alleged attacker is not hit, almost always lead to an arrest in jurisdictions all over the world.

Who said anything about self-defense. lol. Your shooting a person who is trying to commit a crime on your property. He broke into your house, intent on doing some kind of mischief. It doesn't matter if he has a gun. It doesn't matter if he threatened you. It doesn't matter if he's committed the crime yet. He's there and he's not supposed to be. You have the legal liscence to kill him. If you do, you get paid. That's what's on the table. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks.

And again, I'm not saying I support these ideas... I'm simply saying that they would tend to be rather effective in reducing break in crimes; and the costs associated with them. Why do you not play Russian Rulette? The same logic applies for the criminal who's considering whether or not to break into your house.

[Scott]

I believe that it is well-known (and common sense) that having an honorable and effective police force, in conjunction with harsh punishments for crimes--including the death penalty--is a very effective deterent of crime.

Then please show it with some statistics or credible, sourced research.

***

Well, this is a step in the right direction, getting a liberal to agree that taxation is a form of robbery, lol.

Are you referring to me as "a liberal"? I wouldn't consider myself a liberal.

However, given that the proposal would reduce costs, it could be argued that it would obviously not be an increase in the current amount of robbery that is already going on.

I don't believe it would reduce costs.

In fact, even if the costs did go up, it would not be such an increase unless the taxes actually went up. It is obviously the tax that is robbery, not the expenditure of those taxes.

I disagree. It is the increase in spending that is the real tax increase, the tax code is simply the payment plan, like when a credit card company alters the minimum payment terms of their credit card.

Third, while harsher penalties for criminals are almost certainly an effective deterent, I don't see fines as an effective means of accomplishing this unless you have some way of collecting. Take a check bouncer to court and they will probably find in your favor, fine the guy and issue a court order for him to pay you fines and restitution. But if he doesn't voluntarily pay that restitution, you often have no legal way of collecting it. The same is basically true for the criminals.

The government can use wage garnishment on any income streams or future wages, much like it does with child support and tax debts.

Talk about your vigorous encouragement to commit crime. As a law abiding citizen, I'd probably take to crime as a full time way of life myself if the government tried to do that to me.

A criminal can't become a criminal, especially not one that's in prison presumably for life. Let's not forget the context of what we are saying. You are the one arguing for having the state fine non-criminals, which now you seem to be saying would encourage crime. I'm saying fine the criminals who you point out are in prison and I explain how the debt can be collected even from criminals and even in prison. Your point rebuts your own argument not mine.

The government can seize any assets or use leins to collect these debts [from criminals to pay for the financial damages their crimes caused.

Yes, typical of a liberal to encourage more ways for the government to steal our private property, lol. Any method possible to turn us more and more into social slaves. It starts with removing the ability to defend ourselves against corrupt government, and then moves to stealing our property through higher taxes, and now confiscating personal assets above and beyond taxes.

Liberal? In my estimation, conservatives more than liberals support the coercive enforcement of contracts as part of their admiration for Big Business, taking away bankruptcy options and so forth and brushing off the "but they can't afford to pay their debt!" and "that's Orwellian" as bleeding-heart stuff. More importantly, though, I don't think the simplistic, one-dimensional spectrum of Liberal-Conservative or Left-Right for that matter really applies on this point.

Again, not for the greater good of lower crime, but for the personal goal of reducing the number of guns we have to defend ourselves with.

I don't understand what you mean. To what point of mine exactly is this in response and is it a disagreement or agreement with the point to which it responds and what does it mean?

Seriously though, it is not an entirely uninteresting idea... but I remain unconvinced that it would be anywhere near as effective as the reverse strategy. And it would clearly undermine more personal rights.

How would forcing criminals to pay for the damages they caused for which they are legally liable (by methods regular non-criminals are also sometimes forced to pay debts to private companies like Big Banks and Big Private Debt Collectors) undermine more personal "rights". And what are they these more personal "rights" that are undermined by it exactly and why don't we want them to be undermined if it reduces government spending and crime?

Short of instituting a system of debt based slavery, I don't see any effective way of enforcing the fining of criminals, who are being sent away to prison for a long time (possibly life).

In the previous paragraph I named those effective ways, but incidentally I fully support debt-based slavery for prisoners and convicts assuming they are in for an act of significant victimization (such as rape, murder or vandalism) as opposed to some consensual crime a.k.a. victimless crime (like drug possession, prostitution or flag-burning).

I said short of instituting a system of debt based slavery, lol.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that you agree with me that 'enslaving' convicts, particularly lifers, which I support, is an effective way of enforcing the fining of criminals (to pay for the costs of police work and other damages caused by the criminals' behavior instead of fining the victims as you and/or the judge propose).

And that's if they're caught... Most criminals are not caught. So you're basically suggesting that we should fine unknown people. What? Should we take out an add in the local paper?

No. As I wrote in the second sentence of my previous post: "To fund the cost of police work stemming in part from investigations that do not lead to a conviction, i.e. when the criminal gets away, wouldn't it make more sense to increase the fines on the other criminals who do get caught than to charge the victims?"

No... aside from stripping away more personal rights and responsibilities... it leads to an environment that makes it more difficult (than it already is) for a criminal to leave their life of crime.

This doesn't make sense to me, especially in the context. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Are you really saying that fining criminals doesn't make sense because it strips away the <em>poor, old</em> criminal's personal rights but in comparison fining victims does make sense? If that is what you are saying, then it seems to me to clearly be a self-defeating argument. By your own thinking, fining victims doesn't make sense because it strips the victims personal rights.

I will admit that it would probably serve as an effective deterrent for people who have yet to commit crimes, but not more so than my proposal.

I'm glad we agree that my proposal would probably serve as an effective deterrent, but I disagree that your proposal would. You have provided little to no evidence of any deterring effect. The red herrings about Obama and immigration and "the liberal elite" and so on and so forth are unconvincing. If it is was so clearly true that increased gun ownership was causally leads to lower crimes, even of a particular sort, I expect that to be easy to show by evidence.

Do you have a credible source for your claim that most criminals are not caught? No... but since you asked I've now done what you could very easily have done. I did a search, took virtually the first source I came to and applied a little rudimentary logic to it. answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A ... 958AA3ug19

I won't even click that link or believe any stats you pulled from it, unless you can find an actual credible source, because Yahoo Answers isn't a credible source; in my experience it's mostly just a bunch of unaccredited teenagers posting whatever they want which at best comes out to advice resembling urban legends and old wive's tales. But if you want to argue that Yahoo Answers is reliable, that means you have to deal with things like this:

All republicans have small weenies.

full page

Now I ask you, is Yahoo Answers a credible source?

Do these statistics address the issue of criminals who commit multiple crimes but only get caught for some or one of them; in other words are they counting as mostly 'uncaught' criminals who do get caught but convicted for something else?

This is a valid point. Most criminals commit multiple crimes, and so they are eventually caught for something. So to capture the true intent of my comment, I should have said something more like most crimes go unpunished, which I think is pretty obvious.

So we agree that most criminals get caught for something or another. Good.

***

If also it could be shown that the increase in safety and reduction in crime reduced government spending as much or more than the cost of paying out all these subsidies, then it would seem to be a no-brainer. I think we can agree on that. Can we also agree on the inverse: IF the credible science and statistics do not show that gun ownership does not cause a significant decrease in non-consensual crime and an increase in overall safety of non-criminals and thus presumably would cost more than it would save as a government expenditure, then we would both agree in our opposition of such a proposal?

With respect to this proposal, and it's benefits to cost and effectiveness, I agree.

Good, those seem to be the main points so overall we agree philosophically on the topic at hand.

The bottom line, then, is that I do support any law that encourages gun ownership... and I reject any law that suppresses it.

That's assuming you are right about those statistics, which I doubt. Remember, we agreed that whether or not we would support or oppose the proposal of government-encouraging-gun-ownership-with-subsidies-paid-by-money-robbed-from-taxpayers depends not on a philosophical disagreement but simply on some simple statistical facts, the reality of which we can just consult some credible statistical sources,

Paying people to shoot criminals is a good bit more than that, however... and so I do not feel all that inclined to support that part of the judges proposal. Also, the part about fining a citizen for NOT owning a gun violates the persons right to freely choose... so again, I do not feel all that inclined to support this law for that reason as well.

I agree, but I'm surprised to see you write this considering what you wrote earlier in the post and the post before that disagreeing with me when I say things along the lines of that it would make more sense to fine the criminal than the victim in a situation where the police need to be called by an unarmed victim to save the victim and apprehend the criminal.

The argument, however, has not gone much into whether or not it is a "moral" law... but has only dealt (so far) with whether or not it would be effective. Which I think the evidence clearly indicates that it would be, in most (but not necessarily all) situation.

What evidence? I can't find any evidence for these claims in your posts. I will accept your conclusions if only you can show me all this evidence you claim exists.

Still, you are not totally wrong. The cost of a single shooting would be more than the cost of one burglary... but the burglary must be subtracted from the cost of the shooting... and then, on top of that, you must subtract the costs of future burglaries that aren't committed--either because the repeat offending criminal is no longer alive, or because his friends heard what happened to him and have decided to move their business elsewhere.

But the original argument falsely seemed to imply that it made sense to fine the victim simply because the victim would have simply saved them the money of convicting and imprisoning the criminal instead of shooting him dead and cheaply throwing his body away. Upon even moderate investigation, those implications have been shown to be absurd. Shootings cost more, in those simple, direct terms. You propose an alternative ad hoc argument composed of several statistical claims that together would indeed lead to the same conclusion, but those statistical claims require evidence to be believed. So far the evidence has not been presented, thus I feel the reasonable conclusion is disbelief. I don't believe your conclusion that the net cost would be because of lack of evidence presented from credible sources.

That's one way of looking at it, but I look at it the other way. If the environment is not criminal friendly, than what is the big need for guns-as-self-defensive which present their own danger much more extreme and, in suburbia, much more frequent than burglary by stranger.

first, because gun ownership can be a big part of creating that sort of environment.

No offense, but that seems illogical. On the one had you agree guns are only good if the environmental is not criminal friendly but, when presented with the way that suggests guns are at most never needed, you on the other hand say the opposite that guns are good in a criminal unfriendly environment to make it friendly. What exactly are you alleging is the correlation between the goodness of increased gun-ownership and the criminal-friendliness of the environment?

But in all societies (including densely populated cenyers of liberal) the criminals are actually a fairly small percentage of the whole population.

Do you have a credible source for that statistic? [...] Even discounting civil infractions, speeding tickets and even drugs, according to the sources I found everyone is a criminal.

I've seen statistics reported over the years, but I didn't bother to look up any sources.

Well, I did, and I gave it to you. My source not only disagrees with you unsourced claim that criminals a a small percentage of the whole population, and not only goes farther to say something like that most people are criminals, but goes all the way and shows that 100% of people are criminals.

I don't think disobeying a petty [...] law makes you a criminal.

Technically, by definition, it does. But the article in question discounted misdemeanors and even drug laws.

I can't see why. Unless there was some reason to suspect that the person had conspired to commit murder using the law as an "alibi", there would be no reason to investigate. When there are restrictive gun laws, and a person buys a gun, someone looks into all the details of how and why the person bought the gun. But if there aren't any restrictive laws on this, then no one bothers to look into why and how you bought a gun. So unless there was some reason to supect... say shooter had exchanged words with the "criminal"... say this was the shooters 3rd shooting in 2 years... say the shooter was related to the "criminal"... etc. There are a number of things that would raise concern and require looking into... but a shooting by itself would not be an investigatable issue... because it would not be an offense. The laws purpose is obviously to encourage such shootings... it would be down-right schitzophrenic of the government to reward the shooting with one hand and harrass the shooter with the other. Not that many of the things governments do aren't intensely schitzopheric in nature. But clearly, such a strategy would be self-defeating. And it's one of those Liberal policies I mentioned that can't be in place if the law is to have a reasonable chance of working as intended.

Indeed, this proposal would lead to a government that's actions in this regard resemble down-right schitzophrenia. I agree this ridiculous proposal of paying people to shoot unarmed burglars is self-defeating. It simply cannot be made to fit with the way any government functions in any country in the world, whether relatively conservative or liberal. Nowhere could it work that the police, or even the neighbors in some odd police-less utopia-like society, just say, "Oh, you shot someone, well unless there was some highly unusual reason for me to be especially suspicious of this shooting as oppose to the many others I also disregard then I am not very interested in doing any significant kind of investigation." Do you deny that self-defense is an affirmative defense in legal systems throughout the world? Do you deny that even when the burden of proof lay with the state (i.e. the defense isn't using an affirmative defense) that innocent people frequently go to trial, that that is the entire point of court to be the place where innocent people go instead of prison? It seems to me you are presenting a very light-on-crime set of proposals as ad hoc justifications for this one wild proposal supposedly made by some judge in some vague anecdote.

Who said anything about self-defense. lol. Your shooting a person who is trying to commit a crime on your property. He broke into your house, intent on doing some kind of mischief. It doesn't matter if he has a gun. It doesn't matter if he threatened you. It doesn't matter if he's committed the crime yet. He's there and he's not supposed to be. You have the legal liscence to kill him.

Show me this legal licence, if it exists.

If you do [shoot the burglar/trespasser], you get paid. That's what's on the table. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks.

And again, I'm not saying I support these ideas... I'm simply saying that they would tend to be rather effective in reducing break in crimes; and the costs associated with them. Why do you not play Russian Rulette? The same logic applies for the criminal who's considering whether or not to break into your house.

I'm saying they would not be effective in reducing break in crimes and they would increase the associated costs for numerous reasons with which you agreed. Your claims that this proposal, or your alternative proposal of subsidizing gun-ownership, would lower net costs depends on a special, specific set of statistical claims for which you have no evidence. Thus, it seems clear to me the reasonable conclusion is to reject your argument and to not believe its conclusions -- until if ever such evidence is presented or otherwise discovered. Note, I'm saying your arguments would work if your specific statistical claims could be believed to be true (e.g. paying X subsidy would increase gun-ownership by B which would lead to C less crimes of type D which would lead to E less costs.)

On the other hand, my alternative is not plagued by such weaknesses: Fine the criminals the amount the supposed judge proposed we fine the victims. The only arguments presented against this go more against your own argument, in regards to things like personal rights at being fined and thus forced to pay money by the government.

I'm saying they would not be effective...

Fair enough. And I'm saying it would be an effective deterent and (because of that) an effective cost reducer.

I think we're both smart enough to figure out that this is what the other one has said--and I'm going to move on to another discussion.

Then please show it with some statistics or credible, sourced research.

First, no thanks. When you show me proof that 2+2=4 is false, then I'll show you the "proof" you asked for. Until then, either simply state that you disagree or provide your own so-called "proofs". Second, I'm sure there are dozens of studies offering proof on both sides. So, presenting such "proof" is a waste of time. Many of the nay saying studies were doubtlessly done by the radical liberal professors at radical liberal colleges. So they mean a little less than zero to me, lol. I'm sure you'd probably feel the same way about any sources I offered. Third, I've already been there, done that... if you include my comments about NY city... a real-life example of how exactly what I said, more efficient policing with stricter law enforcement reduced crime dramatically. Four, common sense is all I need... starve a flame of air and fuel and it gets smaller. What else would it do? And why should I need to prove that?

I disagree. It is the increase in spending that is the real tax increase, the tax code is simply the payment plan, like when a credit card company alters the minimum payment terms of their credit card.

And you try to claim you're not a liberal? lol. Seriously though. There is some merit in what I think you're trying to say: Spending is what drives debt. And debt is what will eventually make us "slaves", if we do not get it under control. But I'd say a more accurate analogy would be to say that taxes are like the wages we earn at a job. And spending is what we buy with that wage. If we want, we can spend more than we earn or we can spend less. What we earn, however, is still what we get paid. It is not what we spend. Taxes are still what we get taxed. What the government spends determines our debt... not what we pay in taxes.

You are the one arguing for having the state fine non-criminals

Ah... no, I'm not. I'm arguing that the technique would be effective at reducing crime. Period. I'm not arguing that it's the right thing to do.

Besides the differece between criminals and non-criminals is that criminals generally find it easier to commit crimes. Fining a law-abiding citizen is far less likely to cause problems than trying to fine a criminal. It's like fining someone who bounces a check. If the person has enough money to pay their bills, they the fine serves to encourage them to write good checks. If the person doesn't have enough money, then the fine simiply makes it more difficult for them to pay their bills, and the next check is more likely to bounce--or they're likely to do something else desperate to pay their bills.

In my estimation, conservatives more than liberals support the coercive enforcement of contracts as part of their admiration for Big Business...

If by "support the coercive enforcement of contracts" you mean that they believe you should make every effort to honor the contracts that you knowingly enter into... then I suppose I'd have to agree. However, there is nothing coercive about this, as long as the agreement was honestly presented and freely entered into. In reality, liberals are the ones who support Big Business. The oppostie is a pervasive, but erroneous myth. Check out who big business gives the vast majority of their money to. It's liberals. Obama was the most radical liberal in the last election cycle and (as I recall) he received more from big business than all the republican candidates combined. Nor is this a one-time thing... It is a universal trend.

Conservatives admire Small Business--not Big Business. They admire the free-market, not laws that help big business. Liberals are the ones who support increased regulation--which aids big business, because it makes it that much more difficult for a small business to succeed. Whereas the big business can more easily pass the costs on to the consumer.

More importantly, though, I don't think the simplistic, one-dimensional spectrum of Liberal-Conservative or Left-Right for that matter really applies on this point.

Relax, I was just being a sarcastic smart-ass. Hope you can get over it.

Again, not for the greater good of lower crime, but for the personal goal of reducing the number of guns we have to defend ourselves with.

That's probably my dyslexia kicking in again. I suspect I meant to say, increasing the number of guns...

Are you really saying that fining criminals doesn't make sense because it strips away the <em>poor, old</em> criminal's personal rights but in comparison fining victims does make sense?

No... once again you are confusing my arguments for question [1 & 2] with my lack of significant arguments (so far) for questions [3 &4].

Remember, we agreed that whether or not we would support or oppose the proposal of government-encouraging-gun-ownership-with-subsidies-paid-by-money-robbed-from-taxpayers depends not on a philosophical disagreement but simply on some simple statistical facts, the reality of which we can just consult some credible statistical sources

Not exactly... I agreed that your strategy would also have some deterent effects on the acts of the criminals, although not as much as mine. Also, I still maintain that it would have other negative effects that would undermine the positive effects--and thus, minimize the gains for other reasons.

This is not to say that I would support your proposition, any more than I support the judges.

original argument falsely seemed to imply that it made sense to fine the victim simply because the victim would have simply saved them the money of convicting and imprisoning the criminal instead of shooting him dead and cheaply throwing his body away.

No... the original argument was that it would be an efficient way to save money. Determining what to pay the citizen for the shooting was related to such things... but that doesn't limit the overall savings to them... as I've pointed out more than once.

Well, I did, and I gave it to you.

No, actually you didn't. Sorry, but what you gave was an opinion peice. About a topic that wasn't even really related to what we were talking about--except in a name only sort of manner, if you want to call it that.

Show me this legal licence, if it exists.

That would be the law that we're discussing.

I can't speak for the USA but no such law exists in New Zealand. Any response to any perceived threat to life or property has to be proportional to that threat and reasonable in the circumstances. If I shot somebody for trespassing, I would go to prison for murder or manslaughter.

[Scott]

Then please show it with some statistics or credible, sourced research.

First, no thanks.

Then, the reasonable response to your argument is to reject it on grounds of insufficient evidence.

When you show me proof that 2+2=4 is false, then I'll show you the "proof" you asked for.

2+2 is either a priori or a matter of definition. What I want evidence for is your empirical claims, not rationalist claims. The difference between an empirical, synthetic a posteriori claim like 'the population of China is increasing' as opposed to an analytic or a priori one like 'all bachelors are unmarried' is basic philosophy, is it not? As is the understanding that one can be expected to give evidence of the former and have their empirical claim rejected on grounds of insufficient evidence if the evidence expected to exist if it were true is not presented but that it is nonsense to ask for evidence of the latter.

I disagree. It is the increase in spending that is the real tax increase, the tax code is simply the payment plan, like when a credit card company alters the minimum payment terms of their credit card.

There is some merit in what I think you're trying to say: Spending is what drives debt. And debt is what will eventually make us "slaves", if we do not get it under control. But I'd say a more accurate analogy would be to say that taxes are like the wages we earn at a job. And spending is what we buy with that wage. If we want, we can spend more than we earn or we can spend less. What we earn, however, is still what we get paid. It is not what we spend. Taxes are still what we get taxed. What the government spends determines our debt... not what we pay in taxes.

Your analogy fails because the debt owed to an employee by the employer is not increased by the employee's spending. My analogy is more fitting: The tax code determines the rate at which the taxpayers pay their debt, and the proporitions of which taxpayers pay what percentage. The spending (and interest which is increased by lower taxes in relation to spending) determines how much the taxpayers actually have to pay in toto even if it takes them longer to pay it because they make smaller payments. Another analogy that would work is if you were shopping on a TV show and they offered to sell you a cool mop for 5 monthly payments of $10, but then they changed the price to 10 payments of $8; they didn't lower the price of the mop, they raised it! The how much you pay each month and for how many months determines the rate at which you pay, not how much you pay. The tax code changes the rate at which the taxpayers pay and the proportions and ratios between subgroups of taxpayers, but the total amount paid by the taxpayers is determined by spending. Increasing spending is increasing real taxes. If I go to my first neighbors house and steal $100 in cash and then I go to my other neighbors house and steal $10 in cash but buy myself an item for $200 on their credit card that for some reason they cannot get refunded, you wouldn't say I stole less from second neighbor, right?

You are the one arguing for having the state fine non-criminals

Ah... no, I'm not. I'm arguing that the technique would be effective at reducing crime. Period. I'm not arguing that it's the right thing to do.

You are arguing that it does make more sense for the state to fine the non-criminal victims as opposed to the criminals to recover the costs incurred by the state to investigate the crime and enforce the law in that situation than vice versa because (at least in part according to you) it's too much of an infringement on "personal rights" for the criminal to be fined. I asked you don't you think it makes more sense to fine the criminal not the victim, and you said no; do you deny this?

Besides the differece between criminals and non-criminals is that criminals generally find it easier to commit crimes. Fining a law-abiding citizen is far less likely to cause problems than trying to fine a criminal. It's like fining someone who bounces a check. If the person has enough money to pay their bills, they the fine serves to encourage them to write good checks. If the person doesn't have enough money, then the fine simiply makes it more difficult for them to pay their bills, and the next check is more likely to bounce--or they're likely to do something else desperate to pay their bills.

This is a different argument than the one you originally presented. The other one was contradictory and thus fails, but this one is better. However, my argument still stands because the state can use the same resources which I already named for collecting fines that all states already must use to collect their fines and taxes and even to enforce debts in the private sector, which for you to oppose is to support anarchy which I am all for but would render your entire argument moot since there would be no state let alone state-imposed fines. The fact that you allege without evidence that "non-criminals" whoever you mean by that pay their debts more than "criminals" whoever you mean by that (which is confusing since I already showed with evidence that everyone is a criminal under the standard definition) doesn't change the fact that the state can use the same methods to collect debt from criminals as well as non-criminals such as wage garnishment.

***

Are you really saying that fining criminals doesn't make sense because it strips away the <em>poor, old</em> criminal's personal rights but in comparison fining victims does make sense?

No... once again you are confusing my arguments for question [1 & 2] with my lack of significant arguments (so far) for questions [3 &4].

Then please explain this exchange to me:

Third, while harsher penalties for criminals are almost certainly an effective deterent, I don't see fines as an effective means of accomplishing this unless you have some way of collecting. Take a check bouncer to court and they will probably find in your favor, fine the guy and issue a court order for him to pay you fines and restitution. But if he doesn't voluntarily pay that restitution, you often have no legal way of collecting it. The same is basically true for the criminals.

The government can use wage garnishment on any income streams or future wages, much like it does with child support and tax debts. The government can seize any assets or use leins to collect these debts, again much like it does to recoup unpaid taxes, and they are quite able to find hidden funds such as when someone being sued for unpaid taxes or criminal fines signs their house or car or hands over a big check to a friend or family member to avoid having it seized. Also, if the criminal makes bail and then earns return of that bail by not running away, then that bail actually be put towards any unpaid debt. I do not doubt the debt will be collectible assuming the criminal has (1) access to funds equal to or less than the debt and (2) has been caught and convicted of the crime.

Yes, typical of a liberal to encourage more ways for the government to steal our private property, lol. Any method possible to turn us more and more into social slaves. It starts with removing the ability to defend ourselves against corrupt government, and then moves to stealing our property through higher taxes, and now confiscating personal assets above and beyond taxes.

Again, not for the greater good of lower crime, but for the personal goal of reducing the number of guns we have to defend ourselves with.

Seriously though, it is not an entirely uninteresting idea... but I remain unconvinced that it would be anywhere near as effective as the reverse strategy. And it would clearly undermine more personal rights.

Also, there is this from post #8 copied here as you wrote it there:

No. As I wrote in the second sentence of my previous post: "To fund the cost of police work stemming in part from investigations that do not lead to a conviction, i.e. when the criminal gets away, wouldn't it make more sense to increase the fines on the other criminals who do get caught than to charge the victims?"

No... aside from stripping away more personal rights and responsibilities...

Every time you have mentioned this "personal rights" argument it has been in direct response to my claim that it makes more sense to fine the criminals and my follow up rebuttal of your claim that the criminals cannot effectively be fined by pointing out the ways they can be effectively fined such as wage garnishment and property seizure.

You say "once again" I am confusing your arguments, but it doesn't seem like it to me.

***

Remember, we agreed that whether or not we would support or oppose the proposal of government-encouraging-gun-ownership-with-subsidies-paid-by-money-robbed-from-taxpayers depends not on a philosophical disagreement but simply on some simple statistical facts, the reality of which we can just consult some credible statistical sources

Not exactly... I agreed that your strategy would also have some deterent effects on the acts of the criminals, although not as much as mine. Also, I still maintain that it would have other negative effects that would undermine the positive effects--and thus, minimize the gains for other reasons.

What strategy? What are you talking about? I'm talking about this:

If also it could be shown that the increase in safety and reduction in crime reduced government spending as much or more than the cost of paying out all these subsidies, then it would seem to be a no-brainer. I think we can agree on that. Can we also agree on the inverse: IF the credible science and statistics do not show that gun ownership [causes] a significant decrease in non-consensual crime and an increase in overall safety of non-criminals and thus presumably would cost more than it would save as a government expenditure, then we would both agree in our opposition of such a proposal?

With respect to this proposal, and it's benefits to cost and effectiveness, I agree.

***

No, actually you didn't. Sorry, but what you gave was an opinion peice.

I suppose you could say it is an opinion -- an opinion about a legal issue from an attorney who graduated from Harvard Law School.

About a topic that wasn't even really related to what we were talking about--except in a name only sort of manner, if you want to call it that.

You alleged that only a small minority of people are criminals. How is my pointing out that actually most people and in fact everyone is a criminal, and giving you an expert source of that information, not the issue we are talking about? You were talking about it, and I pointed out something that plain as day contradicts what you wrote. If you want to clarify what you wrote so that you are saying something different after I gave an article that proved it wrong, then that's fine but to deny my point to your original unfixed point is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Shooting by those in legal possession of a gun in alleged self-defense, even when the alleged attacker is not hit, almost always lead to an arrest in jurisdictions all over the world.

Who said anything about self-defense. lol. Your shooting a person who is trying to commit a crime on your property. He broke into your house, intent on doing some kind of mischief. It doesn't matter if he has a gun. It doesn't matter if he threatened you. It doesn't matter if he's committed the crime yet. He's there and he's not supposed to be. You have the legal liscence to kill him.

Show me this legal licence, if it exists.

That would be the law that we're discussing.

I don't understand what you mean. In real life, people who legally own guns shoot someone on their property and then allege it is self-defense -- a real life thing about which there are statistics to see if your claims are true or false about various things like how much it costs on average in court expenses. But you say you aren't talking about that because you aren't talking about self-defense because of this legal license -- but the legal license is hypothetical and you admit doesn't exist. So what's your point in response to my point about the statistics regarding self-defense? What is your point in bringing up this hypothetical legal license and why is that your response to my point about the guns?

So to be clear, you agree that there is no "legal license" to indiscriminately kill people in one's own home in the way you described correct? You are speculating on what it might be like if it was created someday, but you agree that it does not exist now, right?

Any response to any perceived threat to life or property has to be proportional to that threat and reasonable in the circumstances. If I shot somebody for trespassing, I would go to prison for murder or manslaughter.

First, trespassing is not a violent crime--so it would not fall under the perview of the proposed law. Second, if there was a law that said that tresspassers could be shot for tresspassing... then you would not go to prison for the shooting. You can't base your notions of how police would deal with a new (and different law) based on how they crurrnetly deal with existing laws.

[Scott]

Antone, some more of your arguments seem to me to be contradicting :

Shooting by those in legal possession of a gun in alleged self-defense, even when the alleged attacker is not hit, almost always lead to an arrest in jurisdictions all over the world.

Who said anything about self-defense. lol. Your shooting a person who is trying to commit a crime on your property. He broke into your house, intent on doing some kind of mischief. It doesn't matter if he has a gun. It doesn't matter if he threatened you. It doesn't matter if he's committed the crime yet. He's there and he's not supposed to be. You have the legal liscence to kill him. If you do, you get paid. That's what's on the table. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. [Emphasis added.]

Show me this legal licence, if it exists.

That would be the law that we're discussing.

First, trespassing is not a violent crime--so it would not fall under the perview of the proposed law.

Does the proposed law give one the legal license to shoot trespassers in such a simple manner that allegedly it wouldn't lead to many court-cases, arrests or expensive investigations regarding these shootings, despite how very differently things work in real life now, or does it not? Can you more specifically, exactly and explicitly lay out what this proposed law is and moreover all the other necessary laws and policy changes it would entail such as but surely not limited to standard response procedure to any shooting which is expensive and usually leads to arrest of the shooter, while issues like alleged self-defense are sorted out through investigation and in some cases trial?

First, trespassing is not a violent crime--so it would not fall under the perview of the proposed law. Second, if there was a law that said that tresspassers could be shot for tresspassing... then you would not go to prison for the shooting. You can't base your notions of how police would deal with a new (and different law) based on how they crurrnetly deal with existing laws.

Trespass is not violent but neither is burglary for the most part. It is predominantly a property offence "enters premises with intent to commit a crime therein". That crime is usually property related unless for example an intruder was challenged by an occupant and was shot as a consequence - obviously the substantive offence there would be the shooting. Possibly we could consider fining that occupant for confronting the intruder and so provoking the intruder into shooting him?

Am I to understand then that you're new law is within the current understanding of self defence or defence of another, i.e. any force used in self defence is proportional to the threat posed and reasonable in the circumstances?

Paul