. . . if you recover your property after having it stolen, then no crime was committed?
Seems like a case could be made that British crime stats are being artificially manipulated by police who refuse to take crime reports in cases like this (I've seen on the internet more than one anecdote or article similar to this one).
Reported property crime rates throughout most of the larger EU countries is much higher than it is in the United States, knowing that you won't serve much time if caught, won't be facing a firearm if confronted by someone you target, may lead to higher crime rates.
It's just a thought.
(also, if Althouse can pick the bones of the Daily Mail for many of her posts, so can I)
14 September 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
won't be facing a firearm if confronted by someone you target....
That's surely not the case in Florida. If you read the comment section you'll see people clamoring for even more of this, although it seems to be the same loud mouths shooting from the keyboard again and again.
If that happened in California, that store owner would be facing jail time.
You have the 'responsibility to retreat' in the Golden State.
Firing on a robber is still legal, but burglars are to be left alone.
Course, you could say that the burglar confronted you with a threat of bodily harm, thus changing the crime from burglary to robbery, and then you can fire away, and who's going to testify otherwise?
I think an armed citizenry is a safer citizenry (and comparative crime statistics between the USA and Europe would seem to confirm that assumption, we have more gun related deaths, but far fewer crimes of every other sort, per capita, and since a big percentage of gun crimes are either 'heat of passion' or related to ongoing criminal activity, they are crimes that would have found other less effecient means, anyway), though I don't own a firearm myself (but then, I got a good enough swing where a Louisville Slugger should be sufficient to pacify most intruders).
Post a Comment