Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[brendonnelly]

But what would you have done in this situation?

Killed the intruders.

And then gone to jail for several years because Australian laws are fucking bullshit.

No, you're bullshit. Self-defense should lie within the realms of an equal force back. I.E If you killed both of them when they broke into your house carrying a knife. Then yes, you should go to prison because it wasn't necessary.

 

[tsb247]

But what would you have done in this situation?

Killed the intruders.

And then gone to jail for several years because Australian laws are fucking bullshit.

No, you're bullshit. Self-defense should lie within the realms of an equal force back. I.E If you killed both of them when they broke into your house carrying a knife. Then yes, you should go to prison because it wasn't necessary.

So, I must ask you this...

Why do people who choose to do harm to others, and care not for the safety or well-being of those they burgle, intimidate/threaten, or otherwise harm be given any chance when they arm themselves and break into a woman's home, or do the same during the execution of any other crime?

They forfeited their right to safety the second they attempted to take that away from the woman and child in this article. It has been said before. If someone ignores the conventions of society and forfeits the social contract that they hold with everyone in society, then they lose reciprocity. In essence, if someone is going to violate the sanctity of my home, threaten my life and the lives of my family members, and attempt to rob me, I am in no way obligated to value their life in any way. Why should I be? Why should anyone?

Please, I would like to hear an answer.

 

[DragonManRen]

Who says that they'll be discouraged? It didn't discourage those two men. Why would he be if he has one of the most powerful weapons of all; surprise. Who says that it just wouldn't end up becoming an arms race between criminal and civilian, and who would in the end benefit from such a thing?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against people protecting themselves, I just think that there should go a lot more thought in how one should do that, certainly a lot more than just throwing out all kinds of weapons for everyone. For example, take a gas station cashier who has a shotgun under his counter. A robber is going to surprise him with his own gun, now what's a better cause of action for the bodily safety of that cashier; trying to stop the robbing by reaching for the shotgun, or letting the robber have the contents of the register?

I'm just trying to say that defence doesn't always mean counter-attacking. Because that's what things like guns and tasers are for, not defence, but initiating a counter attack.

Not discouraged? One was dead. The other fled. They didn't do harm to the widow or her baby. She managed to discourage them from doing violence to her. Mission accomplished.

Your argument is flawed by the simple fact that criminals bank on being unopposed. The predatory mindset is not one that will go up against opposition. If their target displays a willingness to protect themselves - and yes, a counterattack is defense, the most effective method of defense by a wide margin - then they will leave. Shooting the floor won't do it, because that shows a weak will. You have to actually be willing to meet force with force.

Statistics show that arming the populace decreases crime - not just gun crime, but all crime overall - because criminals aren't willing to take the risk that their meek-seeming victims might be armed and able to fight back effectively.

That, sir, is what we call a faulty argument.

Knowing that, say, Cambodjan prisons are even worse does not make American prisons any better. Cambodja, or any other country with worse prisons, has nothing to do with America and has no place in this discussion. They're completely unrelated, you're not proving anything or changing anything about the condition of America's penal system by saying that there are shittier ones.

Actually, unless you can point to a better, more effective, more efficient system, you have no right to point fingers at the American system. Now, the American penal system is very, VERY flawed, but what should we do instead? The "love-criminals-a-whole-huggy-bunch" approach doesn't work either, I think you'll find. Providing criminals a home where they live better than they do outside, and offering them an education at great expense, has never demonstrated an improved recidivism relate. It has all the problems of current American prisons, with the added drawback of removing the fear of prison as a disincentive to commit crimes, while stretching the already-thin budget even further.

 

[Magical029]

Of course, it's justified, this is just self-defense.

Doesn't mean I find stories like this a reasonable justification for a country to allow the ownership of guns though (I bring this up since these are exactly the kind of situations that are used to justify that). The women's behavior was justified, but if she didn't have a gun nobody would have died. The women might be recently widowed and I'm sure the robbers were mean sons of bitches, but a dead son of a ***** is still way worse than a robbed widow.

What do you mean no one would've died? Most likely the woman would be dead or raped, and the baby perhaps dead.

Or...you know, the ass that was one of the attackers who broke in to her home was killed. Difficult choice, eh?

CAPTCHA
the estedop

 

[Cowabungaa]

Not discouraged? One was dead. The other fled. They didn't do harm to the widow or her baby. She managed to discourage them from doing violence to her. Mission accomplished.

With "discouraged" I assume that the person I quoted means it deters criminals, to stop them from starting a robbery or rape or something like that because the target could be armed. That didn't happen in this case. And why would it? A criminal has the element of surprise.

Your argument is flawed by the simple fact that criminals bank on being unopposed. The predatory mindset is not one that will go up against opposition.

That's an assumption on your part. Why would a criminal assume their target is unarmed, knowing about his or her country/state's policy on gun ownership? You say you have to be willing to meet force with force, why wouldn't that count for criminals? As I already said, they already have the element of surprise, if anything's a powerful weapon, it's that.

If their target displays a willingness to protect themselves - and yes, a counterattack is defense, the most effective method of defense by a wide margin

Really? Is it too in the case I described, with the gas station robbery? Is trying to get into a firefight while you already have a gun pointed at your head better for your health than handing over the register?

Or what about burglary? What is, for the home owner, the safest way to defend himself against a burglar? To make sure the burgler can't get in (because any reformed burglar will tell you that they won't risk exposing themselves too much when trying to get in) by having strong, solid and certified locks on your doors and windows, or to wait until the burglar is in your house, possibly armed too and get into a firefight?

Now once again, I'm not against people using lethal force to defend themselves if that's necessary. The case in the OP is a perfect example why they should, but I am saying that it isn't nearly as black and white ('a counterattack is defense, the most effective method of defense by a wide margin') as you portray it.

Actually, unless you can point to a better, more effective, more efficient system, you have no right to point fingers at the American system. Now, the American penal system is very, VERY flawed, but what should we do instead? The "love-criminals-a-whole-huggy-bunch" approach doesn't work either, I think you'll find. Providing criminals a home where they live better than they do outside, and offering them an education at great expense, has never demonstrated an improved recidivism relate. It has all the problems of current American prisons, with the added drawback of removing the fear of prison as a disincentive to commit crimes, while stretching the already-thin budget even further.

What should we do instead? Isn't that painfully obvious? Didn't you read my post?

How about not having prisons that are almost like post-apocalyptic bandit societies? It's nonsense that a better, say, more Dutch-style (just to name something) penal system has 'all the problems of current American prisons', absolute crap. We don't have racist prison gangs and all that crap that introduces, say, a small-time carjacker to a whole new criminal network with a life of beatdowns, shankings and delightful anal rape. How can anyone think that such a barbaric system will help reform criminals and protect society?

Your prison system obviously increases aggressive and criminal behavior while in jail, all thanks to that delightful prison culture. And we don't have that problem. Just keep prisons civilized, like the world they're supposed to live in after their term. Is that such a weird suggestion? Doesn't that make perfect sense, instead of fucking people up even more.

But if you want to have specific methods, how about things like this [http://www.mosac.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=45429] which seem to be more effective than just jailing everyone for everything, and if you jail people put them in jails more like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison] because it seems to work pretty well up there in Norway. [http://internationalbusiness.wikia.com/wiki/Norway%27s_Legal_System_Affects_the_Crime_Rate]

 

[PlasticTree]

What do you mean no one would've died? Most likely the woman would be dead or raped, and the baby perhaps dead.

Or...you know, the ass that was one of the attackers who broke in to her home was killed. Difficult choice, eh?

I'll refer you to a post of mine that reacted on someone who said exactly the same thing: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.337444-Oklahoma-mom-shoots-and-kills-intruder?page=8#13641735

And I also agree with his reaction on that post: it all boils down to whether you think there is no harm in killing someone who intrudes your home, if that means less victims (but a higher death rate overall), or whether you just want to keep the overall death rate down, because you think the vast majority of these intruders don't deserve the death penalty, even if that likely means more victims. It's a difference in underlying principles, really.

Also, don't forget: in this case the woman was indeed in a situation where death was an option. However, 99% of the time whenever someone intrudes your home, he isn't going for a kill or for rape: he's trying to steal something. I don't think this woman should be trialed, but if she (and all other people in that situation) wasn't allow to carry a gun then a lot of people didn't have to die.

 

[TheEndlessGrey]

Of course, it's justified, this is just self-defense.

Doesn't mean I find stories like this a reasonable justification for a country to allow the ownership of guns though (I bring this up since these are exactly the kind of situations that are used to justify that). The women's behavior was justified, but if she didn't have a gun nobody would have died. The women might be recently widowed and I'm sure the robbers were mean sons of bitches, but a dead son of a ***** is still way worse than a robbed widow.

In response to the bolded selection, you don't know that. Where would a raped and/or murdered widow fall on this scale? I'm putting it at way worse than a dead son of a *****. Had she chased them out and shot them in the yard, this might read differently. Had she hunted them down inside the house there might be argument regarding the gray area between what's legal and what's moral, but when she's locked herself in a room and they're breaking open the door to that room, they're not just trying to rob her. They could take anything they want and get away clean while she hides. They wanted to get at her specifically, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that it wasn't to do anything she would enjoy.

 

[brendonnelly]

But what would you have done in this situation?

Killed the intruders.

And then gone to jail for several years because Australian laws are fucking bullshit.

No, you're bullshit. Self-defense should lie within the realms of an equal force back. I.E If you killed both of them when they broke into your house carrying a knife. Then yes, you should go to prison because it wasn't necessary.

So, I must ask you this...

Why do people who choose to do harm to others, and care not for the safety or well-being of those they burgle, intimidate/threaten, or otherwise harm be given any chance when they arm themselves and break into a woman's home, or do the same during the execution of any other crime?

They forfeited their right to safety the second they attempted to take that away from the woman and child in this article. It has been said before. If someone ignores the conventions of society and forfeits the social contract that they hold with everyone in society, then they lose reciprocity. In essence, if someone is going to violate the sanctity of my home, threaten my life and the lives of my family members, and attempt to rob me, I am in no way obligated to value their life in any way. Why should I be? Why should anyone?

Please, I would like to hear an answer.

My logic, and Australian laws are based on the presumption that murder is never justifiable. Ever. That's why we don't have the death penalty, that's why self defence laws are limited in their way. I think I could answer your question with my own question. What kind of archaic country would you want to live in that condones the murder of BOTH men when clearly shooting one was the only necessary as the other fled. In no way did the foreit their right to safety when they broke the law. They forfeited their right to liberty, perhaps, but while on Australian shores, I don't believe (and the law reflects my beliefs in that there are no forms of corporal or capital punishment available) any person can forfeit their safety. Because what the person I was responding to was describing was truly execution. Why should the lady try to kill BOTH the intruders as the poster suggested? Perhaps murder couldn't have been avoided for the first shooting (and a self-defence defence would more than likely work in this situation) but to suggest a second killing was necessary is not only barbaric, but it also lowers the woman and the state lower than the level of the intruders.

 

[Sansha]

I didn't see this story in the offtopic forum yet, so I figured i'd post it here.

http://news.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-911-operators-okay-091106413.html

A week after her husband dies on Christmas day, two armed intruders break into a mother's house with a knife. She is locked in her bedroom with her baby and on the phone with 911 asking permission to shoot them if they get inside. (She was on the phone with them for 21 minutes by this point)

The last time somebody broke into my house, I had to flee and was on the phone with the police for fifteen minutes, despite the nearest station being literally two minutes drive away.

When it comes to home defense, the only thing you can really rely on is yourself and your Remington. Totally justified - and good on the stiff's friend for legging it.

Personally I'd have tried to shoot to disable so he could rot in jail, but honestly in some parts of the US, the intruder can press assault charges for that so yeah, it's easier to off 'em right there.

 

[Cowabungaa]

The last time somebody broke into my house, I had to flee and was on the phone with the police for fifteen minutes, despite the nearest station being literally two minutes drive away.

Woah, that's pretty shocking. Home come that it takes that long? Why isn't more energy going towards fixing that sort of thing?

When it comes to home defense, the only thing you can really rely on is yourself and your Remington. Totally justified - and good on the stiff's friend for legging it.

Or, you know, strong, certified locks, alarm systems, windows and doors to deter a burglar to pick your house to break into. Most burglars are opportunistic petty thieves, aterall.

I'm not against using force if it's absolutely necessary, and sometimes it is, but saying that a lethal firearm is the 'only thing you can really rely on' is just plain, sorry to say it, barbaric.

 

[Sansha]

The last time somebody broke into my house, I had to flee and was on the phone with the police for fifteen minutes, despite the nearest station being literally two minutes drive away.

Woah, that's pretty shocking. Home come that it takes that long? Why isn't more energy going towards fixing that sort of thing?

When it comes to home defense, the only thing you can really rely on is yourself and your Remington. Totally justified - and good on the stiff's friend for legging it.

Or, you know, strong, certified locks, alarm systems, windows and doors to deter a burglar to pick your house to break into. Most burglars are opportunistic petty thieves, aterall.

I'm not against using force if it's absolutely necessary, and sometimes it is, but saying that a lethal firearm is the 'only thing you can really rely on' is just plain, sorry to say it, barbaric.

I totally agree, I'd much rather prevent a confrontation before it happens. I'd definitely rather not kill someone if I didn't absolutely have to - in the end, I'm left with a lot of paperwork, probable investigation and the mental trauma of having killed a person, processes that could have been avoided by a nice fence and a 'fuck off' sign.

 

[Gabriel O'Brien]

If she didn't have a gun what makes you think she could fight off two grown men one armed with a knife? At most if she was armed with a knife as well she would be able to take on one and the other will grapple the knife away from her and probably do whatever he wants. Ignorance like this is sickening, you have no idea the kind of stress that insues when you fear for your life and your loved ones. I am sure she wasnt afraid of getting robbed but getting raped or killed or her child the same. She is completely justified in having a firearm in this time especially if she is widowed and alone and vulnerable... how dare you say such blasphemys to someone who not only lost the one person who meant the most to them... but now I'm certain she feels alone and cornered and probably very traumatized from this event as anyone would be.

 

[tsb247]

But what would you have done in this situation?

Killed the intruders.

And then gone to jail for several years because Australian laws are fucking bullshit.

No, you're bullshit. Self-defense should lie within the realms of an equal force back. I.E If you killed both of them when they broke into your house carrying a knife. Then yes, you should go to prison because it wasn't necessary.

So, I must ask you this...

Why do people who choose to do harm to others, and care not for the safety or well-being of those they burgle, intimidate/threaten, or otherwise harm be given any chance when they arm themselves and break into a woman's home, or do the same during the execution of any other crime?

They forfeited their right to safety the second they attempted to take that away from the woman and child in this article. It has been said before. If someone ignores the conventions of society and forfeits the social contract that they hold with everyone in society, then they lose reciprocity. In essence, if someone is going to violate the sanctity of my home, threaten my life and the lives of my family members, and attempt to rob me, I am in no way obligated to value their life in any way. Why should I be? Why should anyone?

Please, I would like to hear an answer.

My logic, and Australian laws are based on the presumption that murder is never justifiable. Ever. That's why we don't have the death penalty, that's why self defence laws are limited in their way. I think I could answer your question with my own question. What kind of archaic country would you want to live in that condones the murder of BOTH men when clearly shooting one was the only necessary as the other fled. In no way did the foreit their right to safety when they broke the law. They forfeited their right to liberty, perhaps, but while on Australian shores, I don't believe (and the law reflects my beliefs in that there are no forms of corporal or capital punishment available) any person can forfeit their safety. Because what the person I was responding to was describing was truly execution. Why should the lady try to kill BOTH the intruders as the poster suggested? Perhaps murder couldn't have been avoided for the first shooting (and a self-defence defence would more than likely work in this situation) but to suggest a second killing was necessary is not only barbaric, but it also lowers the woman and the state lower than the level of the intruders.

We aren't talking about murder here. We are talking about an obvious case of self-defence. Why should someone who breaks into an innocent's house and attempts to harm someone be allowed to do so? You would say she should have done nothing? It can be inferred that from how events unfolded in the article, that she would likely have been harmed if she had done nothing.

These guys most certainly did forfeit their safety, the laws in the state where this occurred reflect that. It sounds to me like the laws in Australia tacitly support the notion that crime is a, "Legit," business. It sounds to me that it affords more protection to those committing the crime rather than those who are being victimized.

It is hardly barabric to allow a person to defend themselves in such a way when no other options were available. What is barbaric is that some countries would put this woman in jail for life and give the people who broke into her home a few months in the clink and then release them. This woman never asked to be put in this situation, and I find it stupid that some think she should be punished for getting herself out of it when law enforcement was unable to get there on time.

The fact is that this woman was attacked by an armed assailant. The criminal in question displayed hostile intent as he was both armed and fully dedicated to get in as it took him 21 minutes to do so. This woman did everything right. She fled to a safer room, secured her child, called the police, and attempted to wait them out. When that did not work and they had her cornered in her home, she did what she had to do.

I should also pose this question. What do you think would have happened to the woman and child in this story had they not had a shotgun? Before you answer that, you need to answer another question. Could you guarantee their safety in the aforementioned incident otherwise?

 

[Nielas]

My logic, and Australian laws are based on the presumption that murder is never justifiable. Ever. That's why we don't have the death penalty, that's why self defence laws are limited in their way. I think I could answer your question with my own question. What kind of archaic country would you want to live in that condones the murder of BOTH men when clearly shooting one was the only necessary as the other fled. In no way did the foreit their right to safety when they broke the law. They forfeited their right to liberty, perhaps, but while on Australian shores, I don't believe (and the law reflects my beliefs in that there are no forms of corporal or capital punishment available) any person can forfeit their safety. Because what the person I was responding to was describing was truly execution. Why should the lady try to kill BOTH the intruders as the poster suggested? Perhaps murder couldn't have been avoided for the first shooting (and a self-defence defence would more than likely work in this situation) but to suggest a second killing was necessary is not only barbaric, but it also lowers the woman and the state lower than the level of the intruders.

American laws are also based on the principle that murder is not justified. This is why when you kill someone in self defense it is not considered murder. If you insist that the woman murdered someone than it means that you do not consider her actions to be in self defense.

It is the equivalent to me referring to Australians as Americans because I think it is the same thing.

That said I would have a serious problem if she pursued the other robber after he started to flee and shot him. I am a firm believer in self-defense but not revenge.

 

[DragonManRen]

With "discouraged" I assume that the person I quoted means it deters criminals, to stop them from starting a robbery or rape or something like that because the target could be armed. That didn't happen in this case. And why would it? A criminal has the element of surprise.

You're defining "deters" wrong. Anything that prevents a criminal from completing the act is deterrent. If they don't attempt it, because they fear the possibility of an armed target, great. If they don't complete it, because their target was armed, great.

That's an assumption on your part. Why would a criminal assume their target is unarmed, knowing about his or her country/state's policy on gun ownership? You say you have to be willing to meet force with force, why wouldn't that count for criminals? As I already said, they already have the element of surprise, if anything's a powerful weapon, it's that.

What are you even talking about? Predators are risk-averse. Psychological studies confirm. Knowing that the target may be armed increases the inherent risk of the activity, so criminals are more reluctant to perform crimes in an area where the populace can arm themselves. It is borne out in the numbers. Crime plummets in states where gun laws are relaxed.

Criminals aren't meeting force with force. They're directing the original force, meaning unless they're stopped, they can do whatever they want. Violent criminals being violent anyway, they can, and often do, take more than money. They wound, kill, or rape simply to demonstrate that they can. The only thing that will prevent this is making sure that they understand that, in doing so, they risk their life, because that is not something they wish to chance, 99.9% of the time.

Really? Is it too in the case I described, with the gas station robbery? Is trying to get into a firefight while you already have a gun pointed at your head better for your health than handing over the register?

Or what about burglary? What is, for the home owner, the safest way to defend himself against a burglar? To make sure the burgler can't get in (because any reformed burglar will tell you that they won't risk exposing themselves too much when trying to get in) by having strong, solid and certified locks on your doors and windows, or to wait until the burglar is in your house, possibly armed too and get into a firefight?

Now once again, I'm not against people using lethal force to defend themselves if that's necessary. The case in the OP is a perfect example why they should, but I am saying that it isn't nearly as black and white ('a counterattack is defense, the most effective method of defense by a wide margin') as you portray it.

It's the most effective PORTABLE method of defense, I should say. Plain not-being-accessible to your attackers is the best, but that isn't really a situation you can bring with you into public places.

In all your other comments, being ready to defend yourself is MUCH better than appeasement, because appeasement just encourages predators to take more and more. A woman gives up her purse quietly, and the criminal will be emboldened to rape or kill. A convenience store clerk meekly opens the safe, they will very likely get shot anyway. Violent criminals don't just want the money. They want to exercise their power.

What should we do instead? Isn't that painfully obvious? Didn't you read my post?

How about not having prisons that are almost like post-apocalyptic bandit societies? It's nonsense that a better, say, more Dutch-style (just to name something) penal system has 'all the problems of current American prisons', absolute crap. We don't have racist prison gangs and all that crap that introduces, say, a small-time carjacker to a whole new criminal network with a life of beatdowns, shankings and delightful anal rape. How can anyone think that such a barbaric system will help reform criminals and protect society?

Your prison system obviously increases aggressive and criminal behavior while in jail, all thanks to that delightful prison culture. And we don't have that problem. Just keep prisons civilized, like the world they're supposed to live in after their term. Is that such a weird suggestion? Doesn't that make perfect sense, instead of fucking people up even more.

But if you want to have specific methods, how about things like this [http://www.mosac.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=45429] which seem to be more effective than just jailing everyone for everything, and if you jail people put them in jails more like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison] because it seems to work pretty well up there in Norway. [http://internationalbusiness.wikia.com/wiki/Norway%27s_Legal_System_Affects_the_Crime_Rate]

Egad, those prisoners have a lifestyle I DREAM of right now. I've been unemployed for years, and my temp job's paychecks go toward paying off my debt from those years. I should be so lucky as to be in a Dutch prison, living a lifestyle somewhat superior to my own, with better educational opportunities and supported by the state.

Therefore, those prisons are too costly to maintain on a scale of the US penal system, and actually encourage crime rather than discourage it, as is our goal over here. I've heard interesting things about the crime rates overall in the Netherlands, too. Can't say I'm too impressed at the results.

 

[kickyourass]

Good for her, this is as justified as it possibly could be. Two armed men broke into her house, they were clearly there to cause some kind of harm, she defended her child. How can this possibly be unjustified?

 

[Kyogissun]

Justified, as far as I'm concerned if you 'break in' (that is, enter someone's property without THEIR permission) you void any and all rights you had as a human being, as you clearly have demonstrated you have no concern for the home owner/renter's life either, EVEN MORE SO if you enter with a weapon.

 

[Cowabungaa]

You're defining "deters" wrong. Anything that prevents a criminal from completing the act is deterrent. If they don't attempt it, because they fear the possibility of an armed target, great. If they don't complete it, because their target was armed, great.

I'm not:

To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt
To prevent or discourage the occurrence of an action, as by means of fear or doubt

They still invaded her home. The fact that gun ownership is allowed in Oklahoma did not make them think "Heej, this might be a bad idea, people have guns in these parts." Nope, they still went through with whatever they were planning and tried to get to her.

But that's semantics, and I'm not against gun ownership anyway.

What are you even talking about? Predators are risk-averse. Psychological studies confirm. Knowing that the target may be armed increases the inherent risk of the activity, so criminals are more reluctant to perform crimes in an area where the populace can arm themselves. It is borne out in the numbers. Crime plummets in states where gun laws are relaxed.

Which psychological studies? It sure didn't stop those two guys in the OP from breaking into her house.

Though once again, not that it matters that much in this discussion, because I'm not against gun ownership. What I do believe that it should be strictly monitored and controlled (read: that does not equal to taking guns away from people), like they do in Switzerland [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland], and should be treated as a last restort.

Criminals aren't meeting force with force. They're directing the original force, meaning unless they're stopped, they can do whatever they want. Violent criminals being violent anyway, they can, and often do, take more than money. They wound, kill, or rape simply to demonstrate that they can. The only thing that will prevent this is making sure that they understand that, in doing so, they risk their life, because that is not something they wish to chance, 99.9% of the time.

Assumption, not to mention a generalisation.

And how do you think you could stop someone who already has a gun in your face from killing you, outside of advanced martial art techniques. He sees you reaching for your pistol, you're going to get a bullet in your face, you'd turn it in a kill-or-be-killed situation for the both of you, with you already starting off with a huge disadvantage. Mutually assured destruction doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

It's the most effective PORTABLE method of defense, I should say. Plain not-being-accessible to your attackers is the best, but that isn't really a situation you can bring with you into public places.

Fair enough, but isn't a taser and/or pepperspray enough in most occasions, so that the victim can safely flee? I doubt that there are many public areas in the States that are so unsafe that you have to carry a firearm with you, and if there are your government(s) should really start getting their shit together and start change some things. How about the legal system for starters?

In all your other comments, being ready to defend yourself is MUCH better than appeasement, because appeasement just encourages predators to take more and more. A woman gives up her purse quietly, and the criminal will be emboldened to rape or kill. A convenience store clerk meekly opens the safe, they will very likely get shot anyway. Violent criminals don't just want the money. They want to exercise their power.

Assumption, and another generalisation. Any good self-defence trainer, like this guy [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07jnqD8wvyE] for example, is going to tell you to try to avoid a fight if you can; your wallet is not worth your life. And if that mugger wants to kill you even after you gave it up, having a gun ain't going to do you any good anyway.

Egad, those prisoners have a lifestyle I DREAM of right now. I've been unemployed for years, and my temp job's paychecks go toward paying off my debt from those years. I should be so lucky as to be in a Dutch prison, living a lifestyle somewhat superior to my own, with better educational opportunities and supported by the state.

Therefore, those prisons are too costly to maintain on a scale of the US penal system, and actually encourage crime rather than discourage it, as is our goal over here. I've heard interesting things about the crime rates overall in the Netherlands, too. Can't say I'm too impressed at the results.

The example I gave was a Norwegian prison, not a Dutch one. Ours are a lot more spartan in nature, believe me. But still, our prisons aren't Thunderdomes and you can't deny that that helps not turning prisoners into dangerous, mentally unadjusted ex-cons.

I ain't saying that you should build resorts, I'm just saying that the States should get their prisons under control. Stop the insane violence, stop the in-jail gangs, stop putting pot smokers inbetween murders, make sure they're not overcrowded, that sort of thing. Isn't it awfully clear that that does more harm than good for everyone? Things need to change. [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/Haney.htm]

But what have you heard about our crime rates that doesn't impress you then? I mean, we're not imprisoning as many people per capita as you guys are [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita], not even remotely. Our murder rate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate] is a lot lower, for starters.

As for the Norwegian system, isn't it clear that it's working? The statistics are right there. It's funny that you say that it would encourage you to do crime by the way, as the statistics make it clear it ain't doing that in Norway. Doesn't that say something very sad about your country as a whole?