"Kill-or-be-killed" Self-Defense Guru Banned from U.K.

[Magpie]

DNA doesn't make you special. Not at all. Sentience on the other hand does. Show me a babboon, computer or mould that can pass a Turine Test and I will advocate its rights while they are reasonably practicable.


.

Point of order, but baboons ARE sentient. As are scallops.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=TomTomKent;220992]

Er... Do you really want to discuss the health and safety issues, including the decibel volume of gunshots? Ignoring that most are directional, and pointing them at the attacker is as easy as pointing a gun. Will the rapist give you time to don the ea protectors insisted on in most shooting ranges, even for low calibre .22s? Or are those just for show?

Sure let's. A gunshot has an average decibel level of 140. Loud, but over in a single instant. A rape "alarm" such as the type you mention that you say can cause sustained hearing loss and damage must have at least that number of dbs but realistically higher, and go on for a sustained amount of time in order to, as you say, cause permanent hearing loss and damage. Now, a single series of gunshots is not going to cause hearing loss. Gunshots have the same dbs as firecrackers and there aren't massive reports of hearing loss following new years or the fourth of july. But the type of alarm you mention, in order to be effective is going to have dbs I presume somewhere in the 140-160 range and deafen everyone in the area, possibly permanently. Loud, unless EXTREMELY loud, is not what is damaging. Loud and sustained is what causes the damage. Therefore a series of gunshots vs a sustained siren at the same dbs, the former is less damaging than the latter because the cilia have time to recover and unflatten and are not bombarded all the time (deaf ed teacher speaking here). The reason why they require ear protection at a target range is so that, over a SUSTAINED period of time, you don't kill your cilia. The more you practice, the more you injure your cilia, but a single round of gun shots in a life threatening situation, will not cause permanent damage.

So I can't shoot the bad guy, which causes lasting damage to only him, but I can cause hearing loss to everyone in the immediate vicinity? Permanently damaging innocent bystanders is better that taking out the bad guy?

Oh, and lets assume I hear your screams, gunshots, or the rape alarm, and come to help. Which would I rather get? Ringing ears with a risk of short term or long term hearing damage? Or shot by a bullet that either missed your rapist/mugger or passed straight through his soft flesh and out the other side (AND deafened by the sound of the detonation)?

Yeah because everyone goes running towards the sound of a gunshot... But here's another thought, chances are by the time you hear the gunshot, and triangulate and go running towards it, the bullet is gone. So you aren't going to be hit by it. But who actually WOULD go running towards a deafening sound that they know full well is going to injure them? And forget you, why should the VICTIM have to injure herself, to fend of an attacker? What kind of warped logic is that?? Once again, why precisely should a victim have to employ a device that will permanently injure her, so as not to hurt the person attacking her??

There are viable alternatives to letting people own guns. The tight control of guns has an added benefit of course: Guns being illegal makes it harder for criminals to get hold of. Sure there will be some guns out there, but they are still rare enough for a shooting to be national news and lead story on crimewatch instead of an average saturday night.

Really? I bet rapes, muggings and burglaries are still the average saturday night. But good job keeping the guns out of the hands of the people who could defend themselves with them. And just out of curiosity, how many KNIFE crimes occur on an average Saturday night?

I am dubious that producing your own gun will do anything other than convince the metaphorical rapist to pull the trigger on THEIR gun.

You presume that merely producing the gun is what is effective. It's not. You produce and immediately pull the trigger. Chances are, rapist won't have time.

In the words of Bill Hicks I am clearly a fool and communist for thinking there is a connection between more guns and more gun crime.

Once again, how many knife attacks occur ?

The simple answer is this: You keep saying the law isn't everything, it is secondary to the inate right to defend your family. The inate right to defend your family is not the same as the inate right to own a gun. There is no inate right to own a gun, any more than there is an inate right to own anything else.

Okay wait I am confused. I thought just a few posts up you were nattering about your right to buy slave manufactured shoes, now you are saying that the basic right to a basic level of comfort (which requires owning things) is BS? You coming around to my way of thinking?

And you don't think I can shoot someone to defend my family, but knifing them to death is okay? So I can knife someone, putting myself in more danger by having to have physical proximity to my assailant, but I can't shoot them, because it's guns that are the problem? Really interesting thinking.

Your right to defend yourself, like all rights are tempered by responsibility. Human rights, what ever term you try to put on them, are inate to us all, and they are bound hand in hand to responsibility, including social responsibility. The laws we live by are not seperate from that right, they are part of it. They are one of the tools we use to protect our families and our property.

Except of course that not everyone agrees with you or abides by some invented concept as human rights. The criminal doesn't agree with you, the murderer doesnt' agree with you and the rapist doesn't agree with you. So holding yourself to a standard of behavior that will fall at the first challenge, including when you want to buy slave made shoes, is really just folly. All life exists at the expense of others. Even human life. Every time you get dressed in the morning, you are violating the rights of others. It's easy for you to ignore as it happens thousands of miles from your door, but your high and mighty ideals are destroyed by the simple act of dressing in the morning, or typing on this computer. You kill, enslave and dehumanize thousands of people a day by living in a first world country that prospers off the misfortunes of others, but you do it by remote control. Other peoples enslavements give you the time and the freedom to sit there and think up such quaint and useless concepts as human rights and how people shouldn't kill people or enslave them or dehumanize them. What a laugh, as if you weren't doing it every day. These are totally first world conceits as most of the rest of the world is fighting merely to survive. Other people's misery is what provides you with the space and the leisure to be lofty and idealistic. It gives you the breathing room to be safe in your little house, talking about how even criminals and rapists are people to, and if one broke in, why we would feed him tea and biscuits and try to talk him out of the life path his poor tormented upbringing of not getting that Nintendo for Christmas caused him to do.

I know what I do and what expense my first world life comes at, and I don't try to wrap myself in ideals that are frankly just so I can feel better about myself and my good fortune of being born where I was.

It was nice talking with you as well. Very enjoyable exchange!

Ta.

[Rubyretro]

That's all very utopic TomTom.

I agree with you in principle -it is obvious that the more people that own guns, then the more people will get shot.

However..

When I was a shepherdess, often staying by myself in lonely spots, I had an illegal gun in order to shoot any stray dogs that attacked my flock.

I felt very happy to have that gun next to me if I had to stay by myself overnight in the caravan. I certainly would have shot anyone that tried to break in and attack me.

Would I have been wrong ? Obviously not.

People have the right to defend themselves and their homes. It's as simple as that.

[Tom_Wescott]

Either everybody should be allowed to tell you when maiming and killing are justified (and how to do it which is what the chap does for a living). Or nobody can. You either have freedom of speech for everybody or you have a restriction and that restriction is universal. If you want to accept that one person has an inate right to kill to protect what they hold dear then unfortunately that is a dangerous precedent. Some people hold other ideals above their family.shall we allow the advocation of maiming and killing to protect your home? Your property? Your god? Your culture? Your way of life?

You sound like a commie.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[TomTomKent]

Yeah because you know if I am about to be raped what I really want to do is employ a device that's going to damage me in the process. That's a fair way...hey you can prevent yourself from being raped as long as you end up deaf doing so? Or do you presume the victim will have time to shove earplugs in before employing the device to protect their own hearing??

Er... Do you really want to discuss the health and safety issues, including the decibel volume of gunshots? Ignoring that most are directional, and pointing them at the attacker is as easy as pointing a gun. Will the rapist give you time to don the ea protectors insisted on in most shooting ranges, even for low calibre .22s? Or are those just for show?

Oh, and lets assume I hear your screams, gunshots, or the rape alarm, and come to help. Which would I rather get? Ringing ears with a risk of short term or long term hearing damage? Or shot by a bullet that either missed your rapist/mugger or passed straight through his soft flesh and out the other side (AND deafened by the sound of the detonation)?

There are viable alternatives to letting people own guns. The tight control of guns has an added benefit of course: Guns being illegal makes it harder for criminals to get hold of. Sure there will be some guns out there, but they are still rare enough for a shooting to be national news and lead story on crimewatch instead of an average saturday night.

I'm not going to deny there are break-ins in the UK. If they are because the criminals know houses to be unprotected by a gun or not I wouldn't be able to tell you. But then I am unaware of ANY nation where break ins and theft of property are unkown. I would be willing to wager that includes nations where the population own guns. I don't think it is the knowledge you may have a gun that will protect your property. I am dubious that producing your own gun will do anything other than convince the metaphorical rapist to pull the trigger on THEIR gun.

Property is better defended by double glazing, dead locks and a burglar alarm or dog than a pistol. There are alternative methods of self defence that don't require us to happilly make it easy enough for every criminal out there to garauntee they can have a gun. In the words of Bill Hicks I am clearly a fool and communist for thinking there is a connection between more guns and more gun crime.

I will avoid the distasteful polmics too many critics of guns fall back on. The hackneyed tripe about "after a tragedy in the UK we had an amnesty for handguns, after a tragedy in the US they banned a Leonardo Di Caprio video," as such tosh doesn't do either side of the argument justice.

The simple answer is this: You keep saying the law isn't everything, it is secondary to the inate right to defend your family. The inate right to defend your family is not the same as the inate right to own a gun. There is no inate right to own a gun, any more than there is an inate right to own anything else. Your right to defend yourself, like all rights are tempered by responsibility. Human rights, what ever term you try to put on them, are inate to us all, and they are bound hand in hand to responsibility, including social responsibility. The laws we live by are not seperate from that right, they are part of it. They are one of the tools we use to protect our families and our property.

I for one am far more comfortable being a "sheep on the platter" actively preventing my family from ever having to face a situation where they would ever need a gun, as opposed to far more reasonable methods of protection. I am firmly of the belief that making sure there are as few criminals out there with guns, knives, brass knuckles or crossbows is a far better defence than needing one myself. If I can buy a gun, the criminal can have a gun. You would HAVE to assume the criminal has a gun. Not a place I want to be in.

I have no shame in admitting it is probably my naive optomism that fuels this point of view, but culture is a factor. In an ideal world anybody could own a gun and the idea of needing to use it for defence would not occur. Unfortunately we are not in an ideal world, but we should be working towards it. If there are ways as (or more) effective of stopping your self or your family from being hurt than maiming or killing then there is no need to maim or kill. For any reason. There is no need to teach people to maim or kill. There is no need to teach criminals "we are going to maim or kill you, so you better tool up to maim and kill us first". There is certainly no need to encourage people to become criminals themselves, which may or may not have been the intention of this particular speaker, but would seem to be based on my purusal (if I'm wrong, I of course welcome sources to correct me on this).

Wanting to protect your family is not synonymous with killing the intruder / rapist / robber/ axe murderer. There will be times when you have no choice, but it is better to pevent those times than to make them happen. Even if lethal force were required a gun would be far more likely to have been a factor in reaching that point than preventing it. I'm sorry, but I know of no social paradise where wide spread gun ownership has not caused fatal accidents and has eliminated, or significantly reduced crime. I know of places with lower crime rates and gun ownership, but I think there are other social factors producing the first, that increase the social responisbility needed for the latter.

Thanks for sharing your views though. Is always nice to see a little of the world through the eyes of another, even on murky topics like this.

[Ally]

Why would you have to run home and get your gun?

I didn't say run "home". I said run. I presume if a criminal breaks into my house I am not going to be leisurely strolling towards the gun.

In the UK you can't keep a gun in your bedside cabinet, purse, or the like, with out being incontradiction of the law.

Wow...so you can't actually keep a weapon that can save your life in an easily accessible location? They really do just want to serve the sheep up on a platter, don't they? I am amazed anyone abides by such stupidity, even the law abiding. Because you know full well the criminals do not.

But as I have already said, several times, the law is irrelevant. Laws are often wrong. Any law that prevents people from defending themselves from attack is wrong.

While we are on the subject, how many murders are commited by housebreakers in the UK each year? How many result in murders (Im not fussy about the victim being in bed) after 999calls?

I don't know, and I don't care. One is too many. And "likelihood" is not sufficient reason for the government to deprive you of the right to defend yourself against attack using any means necessary. And how many housebreakings period occur each year? I presume tens of thousands if the burglars know the homeowners can't do diddly to protect themselves.

And are we talking about the same rape alarm here? As you call it a rape whistle, while i am discussing high pitched devices powered by compressed gas or electronics that can cause severe pain and hearing loss.

Yeah because you know if I am about to be raped what I really want to do is employ a device that's going to damage me in the process. That's a fair way...hey you can prevent yourself from being raped as long as you end up deaf doing so? Or do you presume the victim will have time to shove earplugs in before employing the device to protect their own hearing??

[TomTomKent]

Why would you have to run home and get your gun?

Because we are discussing a chap advocating the use of lethal force wanting to do so counter to british law.

In the UK you can't keep a gun in your bedside cabinet, purse, or the like, with out being incontradiction of the law.

Oh, and you miss the point. My cherry picking was showing why your own methods are flawed. But please, do explain why you are allowed to imagine entirely innapropriate examples while I can not? Or you could admit my point it is silly to do so at all. If you want to say a method is useless because of imagined circustances and flaws, I am happy to invent as many as you can come up with.

While we are on the subject, how many murders are commited by housebreakers in the UK each year? How many result in murders (Im not fussy about the victim being in bed) after 999calls? And are we talking about the same rape alarm here? As you call it a rape whistle, while i am discussing high pitched devices powered by compressed gas or electronics that can cause severe pain and hearing loss.

Oh and feel free to ignore the "in the nuts" then. Assume a centre of mass target. Tazer darts will puncture any civillian clothing short of body armour (at which point a handgun is equally useless). Still no advantage to lethal force.

[Ally]

I did not see the two preceding posts that TomTom made, when I clicked on, it took me to his last post, and I replied to that. I am replying to the others now.

[QUOTE=TomTomKent;220673]

You appear to be cherry picking one method for a situation it wont work in. By the same token will the attacker give you time to run upstairs and get your gun from the closet? No? Not even while you are cornered in a car park on the other side of town?

Probably not. Which is why I carry one in my purse, one in my bedstand, and have a couple more hidden throughout the house. A gun hidden in a closet is about as useless as a rape whistle in terms of self defense.

Gee, guess NO lethal methods can work in that situation at all then. Is that how it works? Far better to jab the guy in the nuts with Tazer then, or use those non-lethal self defence techniques learned at evening class and put him in a hold.

Ah of course, because though I wouldn't have had time to run and get my gun from the closet, I will have the time to run and get my Taser? And you talk about <me> cherry picking? So don't use a gun, because you won't have time, but hey a Taser absolutely...and while you either have to aim two tiny prongs at a tiny hidden target like a guys nuts, or be so up close and personal that he will beat the living snot out of me before I have a chance to use it, ...yeah do you see the fallacy here? If you are going to talk tough, know what you are talking about. Tasering a guys nuts will leave you with a very good chance of missing your target. Always aim for center mass. Regardless tasers run on battery. I am not trusting my life to something that can run out of a juice and I'll have no idea. Bullets don't lose their charge. Guns are the one means of self defense, actual defending yourself, which don't require you to be in ANY contact with your target and don't rely on a propulsion method that loses juice after a certain period. And in a self-defense scenario, not getting my ass handed to me by a 200 pound brute is ideal. I can shoot his dumbass from five feet away and not ruin my manicure.

I listed a number of possible responses to possible situations. At no point did I claim they were all cure-alls for every form of crime. Neither is lethal force. Or should a store owner use lethal foce to protect his property, from shoplifters? Of course not. It's a strawman argument to try and discredit either argument by forcibly applying them to unsuitable situations.

I did not say that use of lethal force stops all crime. That's YOUR spinning my argument into something it's not. I said, lethal force stops THAT individual from committing any more crimes.

Reasonable force may not need to be lethal, but it is reasonable to the situation. Dialling 999 can, and has, caused muggers or housebreakers to flee before the police can arrive.

And it's also led to people being murdered in their bed while they wait the several minutes for the police to get there.

Othe responses short of lethal force can be reasonable and effective for the situation you describe. Are you in any doubt a direct hit from a tazer or pepper spray wont dissuade a number of attackers in the rape scenario?

No, but I do know that bullets aren't likely to do a Uturn and shoot me if I aim upwind. Pepper spray is a cute little girl defense and I wish you well with it, but make sure you manage to keep your attacker downwind when you employ it otherwise you are just going to wind up assaulting yourself in the process.


As for your post that preceded it, I love how "the right to buy shoes" is apparently the be all and end all of your "basic level of living". Never mind that the person claiming human rights for all is using an example that is no doubt GUARANTEED to be manufactured by slave labor or child labor in some foreign country as his "right to have" item. I really just found that hilarious. Human rights for all! Unless I need shoes in which case bring on the indonesian slave labor to cobble them together...

[Ally]

[QUOTE=TomTomKent;220676]

And just to be clear how proportionately effective a method is does not tie to how common it is. I am asking of the number of cases where any form of defence was used, for example handguns, how many were successful. One method could stop more crimes by being more common. But that isn't what Im asking.

That is not true. If you have a larger sample of one form over another, the sample will always be skewed towards the more common simply by virtue of there being more examples. In a sample where say only two handguns were used, one failure drops it's success rate by half. In a sample where 50 instances of hand to hand combat was used, you'd have to have 25 failures to equal the "success" rate of the handgun sample. It's a biased method of computation. Not to mention, how do you account for failures? How do we know how many people tried to defend themselves with non-lethal measures, and failed? They aren't alive to tell us what they did.

The idea lethal force means the attacker can't reoffend is reliant on lethal force being shown to be the suitable response, or at least to me. If your arguments are on the proviso "when it works the guy wont reoffend" then it isnt convincing to me. A dead body can't harm me. A man in prison can't harm me.

Yes but the men in prison don't stay there do they? Especially not in "everyone's a victim" societies who release prisoners early for "good behavior". Then they get out, and they absolutely CAN hurt you. Because no one actually believes that bunk that prison actually rehabilitates anyone.

The latter requires less killing.

Which is only relevant if you think killing is a bad thing. I don't. Cleansing of the defective is necessary and vital for the propagation of a stronger species. Culling the violent is a good thing. And if they can't use that vaunted sentience to prevent themselves from attacking people, then they need to be put down, like the rabid beasts they are.

[TomTomKent]

And just to be clear how proportionately effective a method is does not tie to how common it is. I am asking of the number of cases where any form of defence was used, for example handguns, how many were successful. One method could stop more crimes by being more common. But that isn't what Im asking.

Regardless of how common or uncommon handguns are, if they are only effective a small percentage of the time they are used, then they become a risk of causing harm to others, or of not working. If another method, pepper spray, tazzers, screaming your head off, kicking in the nuts, or what ever, can be shown to have been used fewer times, but be effective on a bigger percentage of those times, your arguments for lethal force are undermined.

The idea lethal force means the attacker can't reoffend is reliant on lethal force being shown to be the suitable response, or at least to me. If your arguments are on the proviso "when it works the guy wont reoffend" then it isnt convincing to me. A dead body can't harm me. A man in prison can't harm me. The latter requires less killing. An argument along the lines of "If I shoot straight, but you don't hit hard enough", is of no use. I may as easily hypothosise "If you miss with a gun but I beat seven shades out of the guy my idea is better." It is equally meaningless.

[TomTomKent]

A rape alarm? Calling 999? Really? Oh excuse me Mr. Rapist would you mind ever so much ceasing in your assault of me whilst I attempt to summon the constabulary? Yeah you know how I can prove that doesn't work? The number of rapes that occur every year. Because you know, poeple engaged in violently assaulting you, always give you the chance to call the cops?

You appear to be cherry picking one method for a situation it wont work in. By the same token will the attacker give you time to run upstairs and get your gun from the closet? No? Not even while you are cornered in a car park on the other side of town?

Gee, guess NO lethal methods can work in that situation at all then. Is that how it works? Far better to jab the guy in the nuts with Tazer then, or use those non-lethal self defence techniques learned at evening class and put him in a hold.

Oh and be awarre of a logical fallacy here. I asked for evidence the method you advocate works, which is not achieved by saying other methods dont work. Crystal Healing isn't going to start working because Homeopathy fails. Neither does crystal healing work because CPR wont help my scolded arm or a burn dressing restart my heart.

I listed a number of possible responses to possible situations. At no point did I claim they were all cure-alls for every form of crime. Neither is lethal force. Or should a store owner use lethal foce to protect his property, from shoplifters? Of course not. It's a strawman argument to try and discredit either argument by forcibly applying them to unsuitable situations. Reasonable force may not need to be lethal, but it is reasonable to the situation. Dialling 999 can, and has, caused muggers or housebreakers to flee before the police can arrive. Othe responses short of lethal force can be reasonable and effective for the situation you describe. Are you in any doubt a direct hit from a tazer or pepper spray wont dissuade a number of attackers in the rape scenario?

Is there, or is there not actual statistical evidence that attempting to use lethal force is successful more often than other situation-appropriate responses? And by the way, yeah, rape alarms seem to work pretty well during attempted assualts. Even if you did insist everybody be armed to the teeth for a lethal response, the need for summoning help and deafening (incredibly painfully I will add) the assailant is not negated as a suitable response.

[TomTomKent]

Obviously this is hyperbolic idiocy. When the child is old enough to fend for itself, it loses the right to be provided for. In this society that we live in, that's the age of 18. Up until that point, it is the parent's responsibility and if the parent can't manage it, then the child should be removed.

Really? I'm not asking "should you be the one who pays for the reasonable quality of life" or "should people expect stuff for free". Different issue. I like wearing shoes. I consider access to shoes a reasonable indicator of a standard of a basic standard of living. Should I happen to have the money for shoes, find a shop that is willing to sell me shoes and be in the mood, I may very well like to buy myself some nice shoes.
What I would not like is for somebody else to decide that I should no longer have access to shoes, or even the choice of if I should wear shoes or not.

Had I been unfortunate to live in certain relatively recent times around the world I would be considerably perturbed by the assumption of others I might not have the right to a basic quality of life. Had I found myself in chains in a slave ship, expelled from my village by a pogrom, interned and imprisoned with out charge, beaten around the head and pressed into service on a warship. Etc.

Arguing how much of the cost of the way of life society should be inclined to shoulder is a different matter. Sure, I'm left wing and can talk your hind legs off about the evils of the work house, the idyll of universal healthcare, the rights and responsibilities of job seekers and the care of those on incapacity benefit. But to be honest I am over the age of 18, and if you want to try and tell me I am no longer entitled to the same basic expectations as everybody else that takes priority. If you want to try telling me that I no longer have the right to food, drink, shelter, and the kind of freedoms you take for granted, that takes priority over any discussion of what responsibilities are the flip side of the right.

Fine. I'm an idiot. I'm idiotic enough to believe any human from anywhere in the world has a right throughout their life to a quality of life that unfortunately has been denied to some in living memory. I'm a kind of idiot who disliked slavery, serfdom, and denial of those basic qualities. If somebody doesn't want to sell me shoes? Their choice. If they don't want ANYBODY to sell me shoes? Or a house? Or clothes? Or food? Or water? Or... You get the idea. No dice.

Do I have to bare my own responsibilities? Should I expect my shoes to be provided for me? Should I be willing to pay reasonable taxes based on my income in the event that one day I am between jobs for circumstances beyond my control? Different issue entirely. Nothing to do with wether or not I am entitled to the same access to, and oppertunity for, those qualities as anybody else.

[Ally]

No, I might have worded that badly.

What I would need to see for your point to be validated is statistics that show a person attempting to use lethal force to defend themselves is more likely to succeed than somebody with a tazer, a rape alarm, or using other non-lethal methods, calling 999, etc.

A dead person may not reoffend, but it relies an awful lot on them actually being made dead. You can give everybody in the world a gun, but if they miss, hit the wrong person, or hit the attacker who then isn't killed outright, or any other possible outcome, it is pointelss debating what might have happened if the bad guy died.

Unless you can show that lethal force is more effective in more cases, then questioning what a dead man can or can't do is redundant.

A rape alarm? Calling 999? Really? Oh excuse me Mr. Rapist would you mind ever so much ceasing in your assault of me whilst I attempt to summon the constabulary? Yeah you know how I can prove that doesn't work? The number of rapes that occur every year. Because you know, poeple engaged in violently assaulting you, always give you the chance to call the cops?

Regardless, the effectiveness of one measure over another is a red herring and irrelevant. I am not arguing that you should go with the more "statistically probable" outcome. I am stating you can use WHATEVER means at your disposal, including lethal force to subdue a guy. If I have a gun and a taser, I am going with the gun, regardless of whether Tasers have stopped more crimes. The idea that Tasers or something else may stop more crimes may simply be down to the fact that not that many people exercise their right to carry and own weapons. It's very hard to argue statistics when governments have engaged in sustained campaigns to discourage their citizens from carrying even in defense. The vast majority of people aren't going to be armed when they are attacked, or have educated themselves sufficiently in lethal means, so your statistical analysis is screwed from the start.

[TomTomKent]

No, I might have worded that badly.

What I would need to see for your point to be validated is statistics that show a person attempting to use lethal force to defend themselves is more likely to succeed than somebody with a tazer, a rape alarm, or using other non-lethal methods, calling 999, etc.

A dead person may not reoffend, but it relies an awful lot on them actually being made dead. You can give everybody in the world a gun, but if they miss, hit the wrong person, or hit the attacker who then isn't killed outright, or any other possible outcome, it is pointelss debating what might have happened if the bad guy died.

Unless you can show that lethal force is more effective in more cases, then questioning what a dead man can or can't do is redundant.

[Ally]

ah so your position is not that human rights don't exist, but that they can be rescinded? A more reasonable possition I suppose.

No I don't believe in "human rights". I already stated that. I believe in individual rights. "human rights" implies that they are granted by means of merely possessing DNA and I strongly disagree with that. It also implies that the rights are collective, and that MY rights matter less than "everyone's". Which I disagree with.

DNA doesn't make you special. Not at all. Sentience on the other hand does. Show me a babboon, computer or mould that can pass a Turine Test and I will advocate its rights while they are reasonably practicable.

If one has sentience, then one is even more responsible for ones actions than those that do not have sentience. Therefore a man's transgression against another man is even worse than a baboon's transgressions against another baboons. With the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong comes the responsibility to punish more strongly those that violate it. A man has a choice NOT to enter my home and attempt to assault me. He as a sentient being fully understands the nature of such an act. When he chooses to behave as nothing more than mere animal, his rights become those of a mere animal.

But hey, if you think people are born with out the right to a fundamental quality of life, let's pop down to maternity unit. You can show me which babies don't have this right and should not be provided with an education, should be refused the right to eat, wear clothes, expect the police to turn up when they call them, etc.

Obviously this is hyperbolic idiocy. When the child is old enough to fend for itself, it loses the right to be provided for. In this society that we live in, that's the age of 18. Up until that point, it is the parent's responsibility and if the parent can't manage it, then the child should be removed. But I should not have to pay for some welfare queen to keep popping out kids, so that she can suck off the government rather than going out and working for her living.

If your argument is that lethal force is more likely to be sucessful in use than non-lethal means I would need to see the statistics to prove this. If your argument is that AFTER the theoretical threat has been contained THEN I should kill them. No. That is no longer reasonable force, and is rapidly becoming self sanctioned murder. If your agument is non-lethal force may not work? Lethal force may not work. No difference beyond intention.

YOu need statistics to tell you a dead guy is less likely to re-offend than a living one? How long is the average stretch in jail for a guy who burglarizes a house? Zero? Because 90 percent of them aren't caught and they re-offend.

Killing someone guarantees they don't commit crimes. The statistic is there has never been a reported case of a zombie burglarizing a house. Unless you count Jesus showing up at that dinner...