Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
That`s what she said.
In theory, this sounds alright. But in reality, how do you honestly accomplish this? "Excuse me home invader, is your intent to kill because you are a mass murderer or high on a drug? Or to steal?" You cannot react in a stressful life or death scenario in this manner, it goes against every part of the human psyche. If someone is forcing entry into my home, they have forfeited all rights at the door and do not deserve mercy. Because that is what your suggestion is saying, that criminals deserve mercy and should be treated fairly in a life or death situation. Reality is far different from psuedo-intellectual schools of thought.
"Oh gee, this guy is breaking into my home and might try to kill us. Maybe I should shoot him - no, best to leave and hope he doesn`t notice us or try to kill us"
Don`t pull that "he might not be armed" BS. Better safe than dead.
Well what if the bad guys didn`t have such a drating easy access to guns? Just look at European countries, only a few of their bad guys have guns because they`re so hard to get.
And don`t forget that you`re much more likely to kill a family member with a firearm than a criminal.
Simple. And, consequently, simplistic.
Right now there are people in poor countries building homemade firearms with which to fight their governments. It`s not like you can prevent firearms from existing.
And besides, such a happy-we-all-love-the-world approach will make you feel good, until next Thursday when the somewhat-less-happy country invades and subjugates you.
Its spelt Adolf not Adolph.
But only the coppers have guns for protection in the UK. im safe as houses :)
What you`re saying is already common knowledge. If something is legal and in quantities, bad people will ALWAYS get them. It`s a fact of life. No matter what you do, evil will always find a way to work around a set of laws it does not respect or follow. Weapons kill people, it`s what they`re made for. You cannot say a gun is evil no more than a carrot is a racist, it doesn`t make sense. They are tools, and if a government refuses to trust it`s own citizens with even basic tools, then by God it`s time to revolt.
not so simple, tell me, which would you rather have happen? A criminal come at you with an improvised weapon, maybe a baseball bat, or a fire poker, and have to beat that criminal with whatever you can grab?or would you rather shoot him before he can attack you or your family with his weapon?
oh i see, nevermind then...and i bet your buddy never tried to prank you again lmao.
No they wouldn`t. But then the chance of them getting their hands on any gun if they are available through legal mechanisms increases.
My point is that if a gun is available legally and is manufactured in bulk (no matter how regulated) the chance of a gun going astray, or being used for murder outside of defence of the home as allowed by this law here, or the chance of guns being sold though legal means and then funding themselves on the blackmarket goes through the roof. The US proves that.
Just look at gun related deaths in the US. Look at all those illegal murders which have come from guns. Look at home many of them were bought legally initially as Baalth has pointed out. Do you think this would happen if they took 99.9% of those guns out of homes or the streets?
I guess I`ll throw in my obligatory two cents:
The Right To Bear Arms in the US constitution is there to ensure that the people are capable of overthrowing the government, if it should become necessary. To maintain that the government is there to serve us, and not the other way around.
Remember how we won our independence in the first place: Militia.
The US has 200 million in legal alone.
UK: <0.002 to <0.01 per person.US: >0.5 per person.
Long story short, the US has more. by 5000% to 25000%. If you count illegal firearms estimates for the states and no legal, you get about a quarter of that.
SarahJ seems to have it right. Almost all illegal guns in the US start out by being legal guns. Of guns recovered from crime scenes in New York:
26% from Virginia, 19% in Florida, 11% in Texas, 9% in Georgia. We have now reached 55% of the guns, and we haven`t seen one manufactured at home, or smuggled in from abroad
You are allowed to defend your home any way possible. if that requires killing them, it is allowed. however, if you disable them and then kill them, you can be charged.
My Mother got to taser a kid that was trying to play a prank on me. I was asleep at the time, but the kid had broken in. No charges were filed.
------------------------------------------------Hmm...your statement couldn`t be more wrong. If someone can not legally purchase a firearm then they wouldn`t be able to purchase it through a legal channel. They would have to purchase it through an illegal channel, which they will do regardless. Someone who cry`s "ease of access" doesn`t really have a clue. History has proven time and time again, the more "Gun Control" a system has the higher the crime rate is. A perfect example in the U.S. is Washington DC. The most strict gun laws in the nation are in force, yet it has the highest crime rate.
But that is just one example of MANY examples through history
From wiki: Pro-gun control historians (as well as pro-Nazi gun rights advocates) have pointed out that already the democratic Weimar Republic had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalized by the Nazis. According to the Weimar Republic 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were “only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and — in the case of a firearms carry permit — only if a demonstration of need is set forth.” The Nazis replaced this law with the Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, which was very similar in structure and wording, but relaxed gun control requirements for the general populace.
There are also countries (UK/Austria/Japan) with strong gun control policies, and no tyranny.
In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.
I am curious if anyone can name a Dictatorship anywhere in the world that allows it`s citizens to own Firearms.
I`ll share a quote from a well Known European Gun Control Advocate with you.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1933.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.
In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.
In 1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.
In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.
"i only shot him in the chest"
that made my day...
umm from what I know you go to buy a gun. They put your name in some registration thing, and if you pass, then in a week you go back and pick up the gun
well... in the US I know someone that was sued for a burglar jumping a fence and their dog biting them. They didnt have a sign so they were liable... Negligence cases are a bitch
To jump in to your convo... No. Thats why banning guns in the US would really be pointless as the damage is done. However, making them legal in the UK would almost certainly drastically increase deaths from guns. That is not because people don`t have them now because they are illegal. They have knives on the street and thats illegal.
But because if something is legal, and people can acquire it legally, then theres a legitmate trade and they are easy to buy. If this is the case, the chance of a gun getting in the wrong hand, or being used in an instance when it wouldnt have been used before, goes through the roof.
Remember that trick-or-treater that got shot? He was shot with an ILLEGAL gun, the AK47. He was also an ex-convict. sarcasm: How did he ever obtain that gun? /sarcasm
Gun control helps the illegal use of guns, not the legal use.
Specifically, when I was in pre-law in London, the case of someone breaking into a house and slipping on a skateboard was brought up as "one of those cases you hear about, but never get told they get dismissed fairly early on in the proceedings".
If the skateboard was part of a trap, that would have been another matter.
Keep in mind, it`s very hard for me to prove something *didn`t* happen. I can`t say with certainty that it hasn`t but it`s certainly not set up so that the law favours the criminal.
You seem to think I`m trying to use the stats to prove "Gun controls X should be in place". I`m not, my point was merely: Having a gun in your home puts you and your family at more risk than not.
It is more likely your 15 year old will be found dead after breaking up with someone in high school, than some intruder being fended off by you.
The way to prevent this is simply to not buy a gun. I also think "gun culture" and movies glamorizing guns should be lowered. (I don`t mind guns in movies, but when they`re being made to look cool it bothers me).
This law, allowing you to shoot without consequences in your own home in these circumstances, is just inviting trouble...
I think thats a load of nonsense. Thats not what free means. Thats what people say so they can keep their nice gun collection and show their patriotism. The only people who think that free means the same as owning a gun, are those who have been brought up with your constitution and bill of rights. Its drilled in to you. Im not anti-your constitution, im not anti-guns. But that kind of logic is why guns are such a problem in the US while they;re not over in European countries where they are illegal. IMO.
Baalthazaq - “That`s not true in the UK. It`s a mixup of a law which says you are not allowed to set a trap for an intruder.”
Are you sure? I was sure I had read of a couple of cases. If so I must have read them in the Daily Mail and got suckered in by the The-World-Is-Doomed Brigade!
By the way, we have a similar law here in the UK. It gives basically the same right to force someone from your home but has a "reasonable force" clause. It usually protects people from prosecution when forcing someone from their home but if they use unnecessary force, such as killing them, then they will be sent to jail.
You have confronted a burgler in your home. You both have guns raised pointing at each other (criminal obtained gun illegally, something much harder to do where guns are illegal), who will fire first? Well you would probably hesitate, not being completely sure of the criminal`s intentions and not wanting to kill someone unncessarily. However if the burgler came into your house with the intention of killing you and your family he will fire straight away. (continued next post)
Giving people harsher methods, or methods with a higher failure chance, often prevents attempts.
Guns offer a higher success rate.
Denying people their preferred method often reduces suicide rates.
These combine to make gun ownership a risk factor in suicide rates. The link I gave demonstrated a 10% increase in regular suicides in low gun areas, and a 60% reduction in firearm suicides.
It also demonstrated a suicide rate over 14k in high gun areas and 8k in low gun areas.
That`s what I`m arguing against, I`m for gun regulation.
"Suicide is certainly higher amongst gun owners. "
Are you saying people buys guns and then become suicidal, or do suicidal people like to buy guns?
I`m merely interested in "Guns" not "US gun control laws" except as it pertains to "Guns".
Similarly I could be interested in "Cars", if you want to force an argument on "Drunk Driving" that`s your issue.
1976 Washington laws did not realistically increase the crime rate by the way.
You seem to be.
I simply pointed out to the 10 odd people arguing that some statements were not factual. This is a debate about guns.
It doesn`t have to be about how the government reacts to guns. It can quite happily be an argument about "Should you go out and get a gun?". "Does a gun make you safer". Etc. I`m not interested in what the fashionable topic of the day is in a country roughly 18`000km away.
(McGovern, the wiki article has a response to your picture and your comment also specifically states that gun crime was highest in 1994 and lowest in 2004... )
I disagree that those numbers need to be weeded out, however:
Suicide is certainly higher amongst gun owners. There is also the issue of success rates. Cutters and pill takers are far more likely to survive.
You`ll find a weed out will not take out more than 20% of the figure.
As for gun crime, taking it out completely (as I can`t find reliable info), gives you a total of:
91.9% suicides.0 homicies. (For now, but obviously much higher)5.4% accidental shootings.2.7% Legal interventions.
This is not because firearms increase suicide rates massively, but significantly, it is also a product of the number of criminals shot with firearms is insignificant.
-UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled. In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air guns, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including soft air guns). Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005. Since 2003/4 gun crime rates have actually fallen to about their 2000/01 level In Scotland the picture has been more varied with no pattern of rise or fall appearing. The lowest rate of gun crime was in 2004/4 whilst the highest was in 1994 .
Completely true, but did you know you`re already paying for it?
ban guns and no-one gets shot its simple logic. :)"
If you outlaw the guns then only the outlaws have guns. If you ban guns... would someone who is willing to rob your house care if he is breaking the gun law?
"oh and free healthcare for all while you`re at it."free healthcare isnt free.
"So if you have a gun in your house then you`ll be fine? Well what if the guy coming in your home has a gun too?"
What if the guy coming in had a gun, and you didnt?
Wrong about what? I`m arguing against a gun ban and you say you don`t want one.
Then what the hell do you want? A stimulating conversation? What are you arguing?
I think thats a biased statistic based on where you live.
"To consider your TV and PS3 more important than a human life is pathetic and sad."
No, you consider your reward for hard work more important than the leech who is trying to take that from you.
"Would you agree that giving burglary the death penalty is extreme? Because if someone has a gun they will defend themselves with it, and guns are *designed* to kill."
I`d rather give the burglar the death penalty than the family he robbed.
"was it really necessary to even try and kill him? just blow away his kneecaps or something, everybody wins..."
If your nervous, you dont aim. Or he did aim for the knee but missed..badly
So the only people with guns will be the criminals.
I was raised in a home with many guns (handguns and rifles) and in the 15 or so years (yes, started shooting when I was 6) I have shot guns I have never been shot, no one in my family has been shot, and I`ve never had to use it for protection.
I saw one post that said something about guns being a tool...exactly. You can misuse a tool or you can use it in a moral and proper manner. As I type this I`ve got a gun 6 inches from my hand and if someone were to come into my house without permission you`d bet they`d be looking down the barrel.
Now for the story: Many states have what is called Castle Doctrine. Depending on your state there is also a clause that states that you must take steps to retreat before using a firearm. Some states don`t so if someone is attempting to break in the homeowner may confront as use necessary force.. There is a lot to the laws so look up the ones for your s
For homicides you quote: 12,352. We need to weed out how many of these homicides were committed by those already breaking the law by owning a gun and remove them. A ban on guns wouldn`t effect them as they already weren`t allowed to own any.
For suicides you quote: 17,002. We can only count the suicides that wouldn`t have happened if no gun had been present. A ban on guns would have no effect on someone who would have killed themselves regardless.
I take no issue with you other stats.
Then these are simple statements that can be shown to have no basis in reality. I care about statements not based on reality, irrespective of the arguments they imply/do not imply.
For example, I just recently had an equally lengthy argument with someone claiming 95% of people get shot with their own guns. Whilst potentially true, they were implying this meant criminals disarming them then shooting them.
Lies matter to me, not the arguments they are in.
1) I`m only presenting the facts. They are correct. 2) I`m not making an argument from those facts.
What argument do you think I`m making? Do you think I want a gun ban in the united states? I don`t live there, and don`t care how often you shoot each other.
You seem to think that my stats make an argument against what you believe. I think that`s more to do with you internally than with any argument you can make to me.
I`m simply stating that as a population, the united states does not use it`s weapons to kill criminals, any arguments you make based on this are not factual.
If you`re asking "How can I change your mind to make you not want gun control in the US" you`re wasting your time because I don`t hold that opinion.
If there is something else relevant to the conversation, it should be included. So far when you`ve asked me to provide something additional, I`ve provided it on your behalf.
I`m not going to go and get stats on "Number of guatamaleans in Canada who own guns" just to stop you clinging to the "half-stat" theory.
You are running on guesswork, anecdotes, and gut. People have posted scary stories, appealed to emotion, and gone for outright non-sequitur.
To compare that as somehow superior to the CDCs numbers on gun deaths is silly. As I`m done being your lapdog, how about you do this: Tell me what`s important here.
Total deaths? Total crime?Usages of firearms?Police protection?Fighting the government?
Then that`s what you need numbers on.
And your Gut is uninformed.
Isn`t that more to do with the fact that commiting a crime towards a police officer is instantly a more serious crime, and the law will totally smash your face in for it.
As for the whole "make my day" situation, I believe that the law would make more sense be that the homeowner should only not be prosecuted if they use reasonable force with respect to the situation, I would say shooting and killing an unarmed drunk would class as beyond reasonable force, so in my opinion the homeowner should be able to be prosecuted.
My GUT tells me you`re wrong.Think of the wittle babies. And to keep mika happy here`s a link to some puppies that could be killed by GUNS.
Ok, this is just getting silly here. So those facts you presented are all there is to know on the subject? there is nothing more? No other way we could look at these numbers? No other way to further break them down into even smaller groups?
Looking to my last post can you not see how the stats you provided are, in fact, only "half the stat?" You`re inflating you`re number with superfluous examples not pertinent to the argument.
This is my bone of contention. All stats are twisted. If only due to the parameters that can`t even be measured.
As an example, how many of the accidental gun deaths were due to the negligence of the owner? Should responsible people punished because some people are irresponsible?
Should we even be counting suicide in this statistic? Maybe you believe having access to a gun makes it easier to do rashly, but is jumping off a 10-story building so much more difficult or any less certain? There`s no way to prove a suicide wouldn`t have happened if there`d been no gun available, so including them is unfair.
And how many of those homicides were committed by felons, who Cannot Legally Possess a Firearm!? A ban on firearms would not reduce that number significantly, as ,again, criminals do not obey these bans.
You can only present half the stat, or you can provide a false stat. Each of those is equivalent to a lie.
It is important for the reader to look exactly at the wording being used to determine what that means.
My stats do not show that there is a high number of deaths by firearm. It doesn`t matter because I`m not making that argument.
My stats do not show anything other than what they intended to show, factually and without bias, that guns in practice are used to kill in a set number of circumstances, and for a massive majority, it is not to kill intruders/criminals.
If you are upset with that fact, it is not because I have twisted the truth, it is because you are upset with the reality of the matter.
My point is only 1.2% of the uses of firearms are for protection vs criminals.
Vehicular deaths are more in number, but if you take the numbers in the same vein, you`d have "Times Cars kill people 10`000""Times cars are used to travel from one place or another 1`000`000`000`000`000"
The argument is "Why do you wish to own a gun" "Hunting" Fine. "To protect my family" Simply not making your family safer by having one. This is not a genuine usage of firearms in practice. The thing you are saying is false.
If anyone lives in a fantasy world where everything works perfectly, it is the firearm owners who are pretending they are now safer because of the firearm.
The hard truth to bear is that it`s not the case.
Also, for your information, 1 in 7 police are shot with their own weapons. Linky. :P
and that pie chart quote was for another post, though i still think its pretty relevant funny.
"Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths"
Statistics are an argument in and of themselves. You`ve have the statistics for gun deaths. Why don`t you look at vehicular deaths or alcohol related deaths? Tell me, which of these three thing cause more deaths every year? Shouldn`t we ban cars? If that man hadn`t been drinking he`d still be alive today. Should we ban alcohol too?
That statement is an example of were statistics fail you.
You can`t really track deterred crimes. If a criminal knows you`re likely to be armed, he`s not going to rob you. Unfortunately there`s no way to track these prevented crimes because they do not occur.
When`s the last time you heard a story about an police officer being robbed?
These are simply CDC numbers about when guns are used. They are not used for deterring criminals or opposing the government.
They are used for homicide, suicide, and by accident over 97% of the time.
You can argue that "criminals don`t obey laws", but that`s simply not fair. If that were the case, we`d have no laws against anything.
"Why ban murder for law abiding citizens, that just means criminals will be the ones murdering people".
"Why ban theft for..."
"Why ban drunk driving..."
"Why ban assault.."
You ban things when they have a detrimental effect, because they have a detrimental effect to one or all groups in society.
Is that the case with guns? Yes/No?
apparently not, please explain why its absoloutley essential you have to kill someone when disabling them would stop them just as good without, you know, destroying a family...
only to be taken down by the two other gun-toting students, moments after he began to open fire.
The problem with statistics is that they only show a snapshot, a small set of numbers only revealing the portion of the issue the statistician wanted you to see.
Of course not. There are no guarantees in life and arguing in extremes and absolutes is a waste of any intelligent persons time.Owning a gun does not make you safe from criminals, it simply improves your odds against them. Knowing how to properly operate, maintain and lock away your guns improves your odds even more.
"Well what if the guy coming in your home has a gun too?"
Exactly my point, a law banning guns does nothing to prevent this as criminals don`t obey laws. I lone gunman entering you home can do whatever he wants to you, your wife and your child. You have no means of opposing him.
"Here comes Baal with his stats and his wikipedia articles" - Trix"He`s probably building a pie chart right now" -NE026"Waits for Baal and his stats" - Primetime (yeah that wasn`t a criticism).
Wikipedia agrees with my previous post: Gun Control. Check the stats section. You can use the archive machine to view the CNN link, or you can go get the CDC report from the CDC directly.
You can do it while lapping up the last few drops from my 17" penis [Citation needed">. :P
And imagine if that one student decided one day, just like the gunman, that he wanted to kill everyone in his school... Thats why many schools in America have metal detectors, he wouldn`t be allowed it anyway.
Here in England we have a big problem with knife crime. Kids are carrying them because they make them feel safe but they then are more likely to kill someone else accidentally. If guns were easier to get then it would be the same but with guns, a lot worse.
Like most intelligent Adults, I realize that the real answer rarely lies in doing the extreme. A complete ban on guns is an extreme and will not work, for the reasons I wrote earlier. Complete lack of regulation is another extreme an would also not work.
so what you`re saying is all we need to do to stop school shootings is give everyone in the school a firearm for defence.
way to go retard
However, we don`t live in that world. So you want to make a law banning guns? Great! Just one problem... Criminals aren`t well known for obeying laws. That`s kinda what makes them criminals. So in the world you want to create only police and criminals have the ability to defend themselves.
That`d be fine if the police were gods both, omniscient and omnipresent. They aren`t.
Remember that college shooting awhile back. One lone gunman killed how many students? Imagine if just one of those students in the first classroom he entered had been armed.
even if they were scaled up the figures would be 10 times lower.
you cant get shot if people cant get guns.
of course there will still be some cases because bad people still exist.
ban guns.start addressing the causes of crime, (drugs, poverty, unemployment to name a few).
oh and free healthcare for all while you`re at it.
Notice the number of legal interventions? The 28 times includes the odds of someone using the firearm to commit suicide, which admittedly only goes up by x3 so you can argue they would have killed themselves anyway, but the odds of that is just a ~30% chance of being true.
If you want a gauge of the true risk they pose, you can do it with suicide stats, increase with firearms, then combine it with accidental shootings, but there is no data on gun related family homicides that I know of.
`mericuh! `mericuh! Remindin` ya where ya liiiiive! Ungh! Jus` incase yuh forget.
oh yeah i have had someone break into my house, they set fire to it, i didn`t need a gun because by using the wonderful service known as the police he got sent down for 15 years. no guns needed.
if guns were made available in the u.k. all criminals would have one, thus making the number of deaths from firearms rise from 600 a year to 11000 (u.s. figure)
ban guns and no-one gets shot its simple logic. :)
Now i dont know how they handle shooting people in the back(i think that is allowed as long as they are not leaving) manily becasue it may not be easy to get to the front of the attacker but if he is leaving it is still illegal to shoot them but any other time your allowed to.
and i fully agree to this. If you break in my home while i am there you better prepare for a fight. i personally don`t own a home yet(live with my brother till i get out of college) but i plan on owning some sort of weapon when i get my own place.
it`s not likely to happen. he does this a lot. makes claims, throws out a number and expects people to accept it as absolute truth.
about the post. i can neither agree nor disagree with the mans actions. but its hard to find fault in his response due to the many things that might go through a persons head in that situation. fear and anger being the two most prominent. a simple "on the ground or i`ll blow your phuckin head off" might have sufficed, but hes probably also thinking about the people he feels he has to protect. think about this as well, the police were taking forever. that guy was breaking glass and coming in while they were supposed to be on their way. there are so many angles to look at this from. i just think it all boils down to one guy having to make a decision to do what he thought was best for his family
2 summers ago MY home was broken into while i was inside..i had my headphones on and didnt even hear the bastard bulldoze the door down..
i live in a 2 family house so thankfully i locked my door that day but the lady upstairs NEVER locks her door so he just waltzed right in...when he saw her he got spooked and ran off
when we filed the police report she described him being a 6 foot 250 pound guy...shes 5`3 110 and im 6`1 160...
now say what you want but the odds of me or her overpowering a 250 lb guy are slim to none even with the knife i had in my hand.
Thinking back i kinda wish i did have a gun.
You are a child.
Has your life always been full of sunshine and flowers? Have you never been mugged, jumped, robbed at knifepoint, gunpoint, or otherwise harmed by others? I have. All of the above. And I`ll be damned if I`ll allow anyone to even threaten my family. It`s not about the stupid T.V. it`s about my Wife and child.
And while it`s somewhat tragic that this man died over such a stupid mistake, the homeowner was doing what he thought best at the time. If I felt you were a threat to my child I`d have done the same.
And let be clear, when I say it was a mistake I`m not talking about the homeowners decision. I`m talking about that jerks decision to get so drunk he couldn`t think straight.
THE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG
(Personal possessions and primal territory)
you`d think twice before posting if you knew what really happen to these kids and what this father has to live with everyday of his life now. So G.F.Y.
So you`d rather let them break in and do whatever happy things they have planned for you?"
No, I`m saying that you should be able to force someone from your home without worrying about going to jail.
Would you agree that giving burglary the death penalty is extreme? Because if someone has a gun they will defend themselves with it, and guns are *designed* to kill.
A man broke into his house, he felt his family might have been in danger, and he acted. It sucks a person died yeah, but he was doing the right thing.
LOL ya except the law wouldn`t cover that and youd be cherged with murder.
I keep some of my snakes in bags for awhile and they goto sleep. You might have seen a snake handler with the same sort of bags.
Exactly what I was thinking...
I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that. And it`s a pretty lame reason.I can see no justification for this, if the guy was drunk I don`t think he posed much of a threat and possibly aiming at him without shooting would have sobered him up. To consider your TV and PS3 more important than a human life is pathetic and sad.
So, yeah, uhm... who breaks into their own house? :|Seriously?The homeowner had every right to defend himself. I mean, he was expecting the worst. Most would in that situation.
I`d like to say I would`ve waited for the police, but... you never really know `til yer in the moment. o___o
If you own a gun it is 28 times more likely to be used on you or your family than an intruder. You put your family at more risk by owning one than by not owning one.
So you`d rather let them break in and do whatever happy things they have planned for you?
If they just enter your property, no. If they force their way into your home and you feel you are in danger, in most cases you won`t be charged for taking defensive actions. Although, in most states, you still have to go to court and prove that you were defending yourself and it was a matter of life and death.
And you can`t separate a free man from his dogmatic hand-me-down catchphrases or he is not free.
However, bear in mind that when you legalize guns, you practically automatically give the death penalty for theft in effect.
Still if you`re going to stand by shooting people because they "pose a threat", then this is perfectly reasonable.
There`s no goddamn reason for the Homeowner to be Prosecuted at all, he was defending his property."
perfect example of the American stereotype...
The same sort of thing happened here in the UK. A farmer with an illegal gun killed a burgler and got life (he appealled on the grounds of a mental disorder and got 8 years).
and Sarah, you can`t separate a free man from his arms, otherwise he is not free.
There`s no goddamn reason for the Homeowner to be Prosecuted at all, he was defending his property.