Yank shoots Brit dead in Hua Hin

[elef]

Both you and Mac are both right and wrong, it was (is) an obligation of all adult men, which was if you add white the definition of people at that time, women, blacks, indians and children had almost no rights, to be a part of the militia. To save money the legislators preferred that the people used their own arms.

[Flashermac]

When I was a teen, you couldn't even own an M-1 carbine. It was "too short" and could be concealed under an overcoat or whatever.

 

Nowadays, you can buy military weapons that we were not allowed to bring home from Vietnam when we had captured them. I've yet to figure that out.

 

p.s. Most of the firearms I won are antiques anyway, colectibles more than "shootables".

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

There was a serious mistrust of organised armies in the early days of the USA. This was because the colonial governors had used British regulars to enforce unpopular laws. At the end of the American Revolution, the US Army was reduced to a shadow, while the Navy (and with it the Marines) was completely disbanded. The only naval force early America had was the Revenue Cutter Service (today's Coast Guard). For land action, the government relied almost exclusively on the militia.

 

However, it soon became evident that untrained militiamen were no match for the professionals of Europe (as shown by the capture of Washington DC in the War of 1812, when the militia simply buggered off). The Navy had already been reestablished in 1798 to fight the Barbaray pirates.

 

 

 

[chelseafan]

It was common for the american colonialists to keep many of the town's arms in an armory locked up. They would be distributed to the militia in an emergency. This enabled the Brits to sack a colonial city (don't remember which one) without a fight because the brits captured the armory. Anyway, this fact might help the anti-gun crowd with their argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't really mean what it says.

 

However, just about every american home on the frontier had a weapon in it and so did many townspeople's homes. And when the US government was created there was widespread fear that it would become too powerful and take away the rights of citizens (which has in fact happened in some respects). A deal was reached that the government could not take away the arms of its citizens (hence the 2nd amendment). The idea was that a government afraid of its own citizens would behave.

 

So now we have this argument of what they meant when they wrote the 2nd amend. IMO, if you are not sure about the context of when the thing was written, then just look at the plain language of the amendment and apply common sense and common usage. Since the amend states in very unmistakable language that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" the anti-gun crowd loses their argument. You really have to go into a convoluted historical analysis to try to get around that language. Common usage of the word "people" and "arms" removes all ambiguity.

 

Did you know that according to British bye-law, all males between 18 and 55 have to attend archery practicse every Sunday?

 

Crazy and out of date.....just like the constitution!

 

[eyebee]

In the UK, one is allowed to defend oneself by the use of "reasonable force". That is the force used to defend should be somewhat higher than the force used in the attack but not excessive. Now I don't know if the law is the same in Thailand, but in this case it appears to me that the defending force (the american's gun) was way in excess of the attacking force (the Brit with no weapon). In the UK the American would be done for murder.

 

There's a famous case in the UK, the case of Tony Martin, who set a trap for 2 men that he said were constantly burgling (burglarizing?) his house. One day he lay in wait for them with a shotgun. When they got in his house, he shot them both, wounding one and killing the other (a 16 year old boy).

 

He was tried and found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, because the force he used was not "reasonable". Later, on appeal, his conviction was overturned and reduced to manslaughter because of "diminished responsibility".

 

I agree with Robaus that the addition of guns to any equation always makes for a worse outcome.

 

This link gives full details: Tony Martin

[Flashermac]

It varies slightly from state to state and city to city, but generally you are allowed to use deadly force only when your life is threatened.

 

e.g. If a possibly armed intruder is breaking into your home with the knowledge that you are there, you may shoot, stab or thump him with a heavy object in self defence. However, if an intruder is fleeing from you, you cannot. Shoot even an armed robber in the back, and you may well find yourself being booked for murder.

 

Also, you will have a damned hard time explaining to the police and courts why you shot an unarmed assailant.

 

 

 

 

[cavanami]

We always said, if someone is breaking into your house by climbing thru a window and you shoot them...drag them into the house so as to make a better case for your defense.

 

Excessive force? if someone is illegally in my house , I have no idea if they are armed, if they intend to kill me, etc...under these circumstances using a gun is not excessive force, IMO.

I would rather err on the side of caution for my personal safety.

Of course, the criminal will sue me and I will be in a world of hurt even though they were in my house illegally!

 

No easy answer...

[Khunhunter]

Gentlemen;

 

Many of your responses tell me three things. 1. most of you have never been in a life threatening situation, if you had you would know that at some point fear and or heightened emotion fueled by same will make you act. I have seen an experienced that rush of adrenalyn exasperated by fear, at that point you react not think. 2. There is no valid excuse for the behavour of the said victim, if it is as reported. If anyone behaves in such a manner, he or she risks being shot. 3. By the reports of the caliber and the effects of the weapon and the areas that the victim was shot it again reveals that many of you do not appreciate a. that in a moment of crises a person's aim is off when one takes the final step and fires his or her weapon at another person they are likely to take careful studied aim, you simply point and fire. Perhaps many of you have seen too many movies, even with adequate military or police training you rarely see or can expect someone to shoot to disable ie shoot to disable, doesn't happen that way.

And finally, discussions of "how we as a species have evolved" are mute when faced with what we perceive as a life threatening situation. It takes alot for most people, particuarly those unacustomed to violent threats, to shoot another human being, regardless of any bravado posted on a web site. The social taboos against same are quite strong. Dilitants can preach about restraint, high roads etc. but every person has a right and indeed a duty to protect themselves and their loved ones when necessary. It is also instructive to note that in all of the posts it has been noted that the police were not close by and could not have arrived in time to take charge and prevent further escalation of the situation.

Instead of further claims and condemnations what say we all wait to find out more about what "actually happened" rather than these third and fourth person opinions of the person/s involved in this situation.

I have owned weapons for most of my life and have been forced to use them in my defense a handful of times. If I had waited or tried to reason with my assailant I would have killed or serously injured.

[Flashermac]

<< Instead of further claims and condemnations what say we all wait to find out more about what "actually happened" rather than these third and fourth person opinions of the person/s involved in this situation. >>

 

Agreed. The original post seems to have been forgotten somewhere along the line.

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

"Agreed. The original post seems to have been forgotten somewhere along the line."

 

And the issue has turned into a debate of the pros and cons of gun ownership and the right to be able to protect one's self.

 

I wonder how much of an ass beating a person will take before they will stand up and defend themself?