In a message dated 26/06/00 22:47:05 GMT Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Mark Steyn devoted his monthly column in the July 2000 "American
> magazine to violent crime in Britain, with a particular focus on victims
> were prosecuted for resisting violent attacks. Many Britons are now
> of defending themselves, not because they think their assailants will
> them any worse, but because the police and courts will.
As a British citizen this is something I have thought about and talked
about in depth with friends. The concensus seems to be that most people
use whatever force they deemed neccessary to protect themselves and their
possesions. Of course when it comes to the crunch, I think most people would
be too shocked to put up as much of a fight as they would want to.
I for one would shoot first and worry about the consequences later.
Unfortunately a paintball gun probably wouldn't give me much protection from
a buglar, but at least a luminous green painted criminal would be easier for
the police to find.
Public opinion here is just about 100% behind anyone that does harm to
someone attacking them or their property and it seems that the law is
becoming more leaniant towards anyone in this position. At the end of the
day, 2 wrongs..........so I think the emphisis should be on preventing the
crime in the first place rather than aguing about any crimes that were as a
direct result. Also if criminals know that their victims will get off scott
free for bludgeoning them to death with a golf club in the name of self
defense, They are more likely to carry weapons and use them for their own
cha..ching........oops, my two cents ran out. I was just getting
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:36 MDT