Homeowner Saved By `Make My Day` Law

Submitted by: ne028 8 years ago in

Moral of the story: If you"re drunk, make sure the house you"re breaking into is yours.
There are 168 comments:
Male 61
lol awesome
0
Reply
Male 603
I can appreciate the idea that we should only use lethal force when our lives are in danger, but to place the onus of determining if that`s legally the case on the victim is unjust.
0
Reply
Male 12
That law is wrong.
It should be such that if you are not under attack you should not be allowed under any circumstances to fire a lethal shot.
What this means is that you can prevent the burgler, like in this news piece, by shooting at his legs or something, no his chest.
0
Reply
Male 122
"cant we blame excessive drinking?"

That`s what she said.

0
Reply
Male 362
"I believe that you should be able to defend yourself, but only if you are in in immediate danger. Meaning you must know that the burglar intends to kill you. I mean, why do you break in? To steal not to kill."

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.

0
Reply
Male 52
Haha. Colorado FTW! I live in Pueblo
0
Reply
Male 1,153
haha typical america.
shoot someone - get away with it.
how is it legal to open fire on someone? how?!
stupid out of date laws, thats why
0
Reply
Male 39
I believe that you should be able to defend yourself, but only if you are in in immediate danger. Meaning you must know that the burglar intends to kill you. I mean, why do you break in? To steal not to kill.
0
Reply
Male 340
"OMG i cant believe no charges can be laid!! The US is one crazy place!! They allow people to have guns yet do not enforce any kind of punishment for this!! I mean come on!!! Its sheer STUPIDITY this guy should be locked up for being stupid. Why didnt they just leave through the front door?? instead of KILLING him?? Over here people get thrown into jail if they attempt to hurt anyone breaking and entering. drating crazy"

"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.

0
Reply
Female 54
OMG i cant believe no charges can be laid!! The US is one crazy place!! They allow people to have guns yet do not enforce any kind of punishment for this!! I mean come on!!! Its sheer STUPIDITY this guy should be locked up for being stupid. Why didnt they just leave through the front door?? instead of KILLING him?? Over here people get thrown into jail if they attempt to hurt anyone breaking and entering. drating crazy
0
Reply
Male 362
After reading everyone`s posts, I have concluded that people have no desire for their own safety or freedom, are irrevocably stupid, and that the nukes should be launched so we can start over. I`ve given up on Europe and the rest of the world. But mostly Europe.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
All these people using the argument "bad guys can kill my family".

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.

0
Reply
Male 1,455
"My view is, if no guns were made, no one would have one, and therefore no one would get killed with one. Another bonus of this is, if we expanded it to include all weapons, to more atomic bomb threats, no more war.
Simple."

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.

Simplicity.

0
Reply
Male 98
@SilverThread

Its spelt Adolf not Adolph.

0
Reply
Male 98
just because you use a gun in self defense doesnt mean you have to kill that person. you could just pop a cap in the knee or something. i wouldnt get up after that. and i would imagine it wouldnt be the pain it would be the thought that they would shoot again.

But only the coppers have guns for protection in the UK. im safe as houses :)

0
Reply
Male 362
@ SarahJ26:

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.

0
Reply
Male 557
"My view is, if no guns were made, no one would have one, and therefore no one would get killed with one. Another bonus of this is, if we expanded it to include all weapons, to more atomic bomb threats, no more war.
Simple."

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?

0
Reply
Female 1,653
My view is, if no guns were made, no one would have one, and therefore no one would get killed with one. Another bonus of this is, if we expanded it to include all weapons, to more atomic bomb threats, no more war.
Simple.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
"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."

oh i see, nevermind then...and i bet your buddy never tried to prank you again lmao.

0
Reply
Male 4,793
so wait...if somebody is in my house, i can `legally` kill them? thats what they made it sound like, im sure its more complex than that...right?
0
Reply
Female 495
"If someone can not legally purchase a firearm then they wouldn`t be able to purchase it through a legal channel."

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?

0
Reply
Male 135
Gun Control argume-err discussion, again?

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.

0
Reply
Male 362
We can debate about guns used as protectuon all we want, but it`s a stupid discussion. Firearms are the modern weapons of this world, like the club, sword, and spear of ancient days. You use a gun to kill people who try to kill you. Simple, there should be no question on why you should have one for defense, it`s freaking common sense. The ONLY reason we in the US have awesome gun rights is to prevent tyranny. That`s it. And in order for a citizenship to exert authority over a government, they need modern weapons equivalent to the government`s arsenal. You can say, "This country is perfect, tyranny couldn`t possibly happen here you fool." Oh yeah? Tell that to every other civilization ever created.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Andrew:
The UK has an estimated 120`000 to 500`000 guns, which includes deactivated, reactivated, replica, legal and illegal firearms.

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

0
Reply
Male 674
I love that My state`s make my day law.

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.

0
Reply
Male 181
SarahJ86:
"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."

------------------------------------------------
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

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Silver:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. Off the top of my head.

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.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
Um... why is it called the "make my day" law?
0
Reply
Male 3,431

In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

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.

0
Reply
Male 3,431
In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

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.

0
Reply
Male 58
lol

"i only shot him in the chest"

that made my day...

0
Reply
Male 1,629
i doubt they call it the same but its the same in NY cept its your property as a whole not just your home. just any trespassers haha kinda funny
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Could someone post the general system that people go through to get a gun in the US? I know that there are some circumstances where guns can actually be legal in the UK."

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

0
Reply
Male 7,933
"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"."

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

0
Reply
Female 495
Its still quite an entertaining read, if you can keep your rage suppressed long enough to make it past the front page. I tend to explode by the time I get to the opinion pieces.
0
Reply
Male 2,121
Could someone post the general system that people go through to get a gun in the US? I know that there are some circumstances where guns can actually be legal in the UK.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
The daily mail used to be better back in my day, but I agree the independent is better. ;)
0
Reply
Female 495
Baalthazaq - Ah ok, so it was the Daily Mail clouding my mind! Ive switched to the independent now, its all good ;)
0
Reply
Female 495
"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?"

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.


0
Reply
Male 3,646
Just remember, gun control controls the legal use of guns, not the illegal use of guns.
So criminals are going to get guns no matter what.

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.

0
Reply
Male 2,121
lol Tenty. You condensed a whole side of the argument into 6 words.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Link for SarahJ. I`ve not been able to find any cases yet where the case was not thrown out of court.

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.

0
Reply
Male 424
Just ban guns?? works everywhere else.
0
Reply
Male 207
I support this law. Is alcohol supposed to be some god damn protection from the law? I`m supposed to feel sorry for a drunk that broke a glass window to try to enter a house? I`m sorry but more than likely he was trying to steal poo, and it was breaking and entering. Not to mention, I have been fall-down lights out drunk before, and NEVER been unable to tell my house from another`s.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
It`s alright, you seem like a reasonable guy, I think we`ve just been arguing alongside each other rather than at each other for a while.

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).

0
Reply
Male 588
I bet that man wouldn`t feel so good if he accidentally shot his drunken son coming home after partying late one night.

This law, allowing you to shoot without consequences in your own home in these circumstances, is just inviting trouble...

0
Reply
Male 228
I just realized something about your statistics. I`m sorry it took me this long to realize this.
Maybe it`s because I just now figured out what you were trying to say. Honestly I`m a bit confused as to why you bothered to show us these statistics at all as they barely lend any credence to your argument whatsoever.
0
Reply
Female 495
Atlacatl – “Sarah, you can`t separate a free man from his arms, otherwise he is not free.”

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!

0
Reply
Male 2,121
Even if he didn`t intend to kill you, the threat of the loaded gun would probably cause him to fire in his own self defense. (This is all assuming you haven`t already shot him...)
0
Reply
Male 228
So with a 60% reduction in suicides in low gun ares, shouldn`t your reduce your suicide gun death numbers by 40% for the purposes of the debate?
0
Reply
Male 2,121
The thing I`m trying to say is that where guns are generally unavailable then the ability of criminals to obtain guns is severly restricted.

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)

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Neither. I`m suggesting that easy access to firearms gives rise to easy suicides. Delaying a suicide for even a few seconds shows dramatic results in fewer suicides.

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.

0
Reply
Male 228
"Why complete and utter ban?"

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?

0
Reply
Male 4,546
No, you are.

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.

0
Reply
Male 14,331
"I`m not interested in what the fashionable topic of the day is in a country roughly 18`000km away."

You seem to be.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Are you kidding?

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... )

0
Reply
Male 14,331
-In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city`s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
-New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
-In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
-Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Why complete and utter ban?

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.

0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Baalthazaq from your wikki link

-UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population.[121] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled.[122] 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).[123] 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[17] 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 [124].

0
Reply
Female 1,082
thats crazy. i agree that the owner shouldnt be prosecuted, but damn...
0
Reply
Male 228
"free healthcare isn`t free."

Completely true, but did you know you`re already paying for it?

0
Reply
Male 7,933
"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. :)"

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?

0
Reply
Male 228
"My GUT tells me you`re wrong."

Wrong about what? I`m arguing against a gun ban and you say you don`t want one.

0
Reply
Male 14,331
This stat is true all these people banned civilan ownership of guns.Why would that be?
0
Reply
Female 1,427
"rather than blame guns, cant we blame excessive drinking?"

Completely agreed.

0
Reply
Male 228
"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."

Then what the hell do you want? A stimulating conversation? What are you arguing?

0
Reply
Male 7,933
"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."

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

0
Reply
Male 237
Okay, for the folks that want to ban guns:

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

0
Reply
Male 228
The issue we are debating, as I see it, is over the complete and utter ban of civilian firearms. What we need to see is how our lives would be improved by such a ban. You can use the numbers you had before, but certain people counted in them need to somehow be weeded out.

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
If however, your argument leads into
"A man without a gun is not free"
"The UK should have guns like the US"
"You are safer if you own a gun"

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
To answer your question: Very little, but you`re also making a huge mistake.

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Presenting half the stat is the same as presenting half the truth.

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.

0
Reply
Male 228
I`m not saying stats are completely without merit. I`m asking you how can I challenge your stats in a way that will cause You to examine them more honestly. Can you admit that at least some portion of those homicides were committed by people who were breaking the law just by being in possession of a firearm?

And your Gut is uninformed.

0
Reply
Male 94
"When`s the last time you heard a story about an police officer being robbed?"

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Sigh. Fine. You win. Stats are out.

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.

Happy now?

0
Reply
Male 212
rather than blame guns, cant we blame excessive drinking?
0
Reply
Male 228
"You can only present half the stat"

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.

0
Reply
Female 5,222
WHAHAHAHA.. when i saw the title i was like.. OH colorado has this law.. and then opened it and its in colorado springs!! rofl.. seriously
0
Reply
Male 228
"They can also be used untwisted."

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
I have to admit I`m a little bit annoyed at the: "Stats can say anything" culture. No, they can`t.

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Keegan, you`re demonstrating how stats can be twisted, but simply by twisting them. They can also be used untwisted.

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.

0
Reply
Male 228
Comparing Guns to murder, theft, drunk driving, and assault is silly. Guns are tools. Murder, theft, etc. are all actions. A better analogy would be to comparing a ban on guns to a ban on Cars, alcohol, or body parts (100% of rapes are committed with a sexual organ of some kind, let`s rip em all off at birth to prevent rape).
0
Reply
Male 4,546
When was the last time you heard of a policeman being robbed in the UK where they usually aren`t armed?

Also, for your information, 1 in 7 police are shot with their own weapons. Linky. :P

0
Reply
Male 889
baal those stats are nice and all but what does it have to do with my story? surely that 250 pound bastard couldve killed us both without a gun

and that pie chart quote was for another post, though i still think its pretty relevant funny.

0
Reply
Male 228
An interesting statistic in the Wikipedia article you linked earlier.

"Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths"

0
Reply
Male 228
"Statistics can be the cornerstone of any argument."

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?

0
Reply
Male 228
"They are not used for deterring criminals."

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?

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Statistics can be the cornerstone of any argument. I prefer it to "Think of the wittle babies" and "So you *want* to be raped?!?!?!"

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?

0
Reply
Male 773
"lmaonaise, if you knew ANYTHING at all about firearms, you would know how utterly drating stupid you just sounded."

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...

0
Reply
Male 228
"And imagine if that one student decided one day, just like the gunman, that he wanted to kill everyone in his school..."

only to be taken down by the two other gun-toting students, moments after he began to open fire.

0
Reply
Male 228
@ Baalthazaq: You seem to be a well-reasoned individual... Do you really believe that statistics are the end all, be all of any argument? Statistics can be set up to show whatever you want, they can be spun to prove whatever point you like. And studies show that most studies show whatever the people making that study want them to show.

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.

0
Reply
Male 228
"So if you have a gun in your house then you`ll be fine?"

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Mikallang: I usually do post links. Usually that`s what I`m criticized for. The fact of the matter is including a link takes up a lot of char count, so sometimes I don`t, or I include it in the next post.


"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

0
Reply
Male 2,121
"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."

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.

0
Reply
Male 2,121
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?

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.

0
Reply
Male 228
Where did I say everyone should have a gun? I never really got specific about how I think guns should be regulated.

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.

0
Reply
Male 1,365
He got the ultimate [email protected], two shots, straight up, no chaser.
0
Reply
Male 1,365
He got the ultimate roostertail, two shots, straight up..no chaser.
0
Reply
Male 72
@ keegan31:

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

0
Reply
Male 228
About the right to bear arms. Let me first say that I agree with some of you on one point: We would be better of if guns did not exist at all, if no one could get them.

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.

0
Reply
Male 72
ahem retards, look at how many people get shot in the u.k. every year in countries without public access to guns compared to the u.s. figures.

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.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
It depends who you ask, however, as an example:
12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
789 accidental shootings (2.5%)
330 from legal intervention <-- This is the stat you`re interested in. (1.2%)
221 from undetermined intent

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.

0
Reply
Male 9,305
Did anyone notice the American flag images waving in the back?

`mericuh! `mericuh! Remindin` ya where ya liiiiive! Ungh! Jus` incase yuh forget.

0
Reply
Male 228
About the right to bear arms. Let me first say that I agree with some of you on one point: We would be better of if guns did not exist at all, if no one could get them.

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.

0
Reply
Male 5,194
This is a good law. That a-hole probably breaks into a LOT of houses when he`s drunk and pretending to "have the wrong house".
0
Reply
Male 72
owning a gun only makes the people breaking in want a gun themselves.

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. :)

0
Reply
Male 286
(cont. due to character limit) as to the people who say you are more likely to have the weapon used on you or on your family that doesn`t happen if you take proper care of the weapon. or when you have kids who shoot each other that happens when the parents instead of teaching kids about weapons. I was raised in a house full of guns but my dad properly taught me about them and i never NEVER played with them and i always kept my friends away from them unless i was with them and my dad and we where doing some target shooting in our back yard. The problem is you have parents who just try to hide the gun from their kids and not properly train the kids on the proper use of guns.
0
Reply
Male 286
ohio just passed a law similar to this called the "castle law" or something like that and it says that if anyone breaks into your home they have already show negative intentions to you and becuase of the fact that you don`t know what the plan on doing rather it be just rob and tie your family up or kill everyone then rob the house that you have the right to shoot to kill.

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.

0
Reply
Male 610
marencolleen:
"baalthazag, i would like to see your scientific proof that owning a gun makes you 28 times more likely to be killed by it."

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

0
Reply
Male 889
Well to all those people saying owning a gun is bad you clearly never had someone break into your house..

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.

0
Reply
Male 78
what keegan said
0
Reply
Male 228
Four words Hknuddy:

You are a child.

0
Reply
Male 228
"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."

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.

0
Reply
Male 69
WTF, the "MAKE MY DAY" law?
Is it really called that?
Sounds like some movie or something
0
Reply
Male 72
Four words america:

THE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG

0
Reply
Male 228
It`s sad that the guy died for something as silly as that, but the homeowner`s should be allowed the chance to protect themselves. They had no way of knowing his intentions.
0
Reply
Male 612
how did the home owner even know the guy wasent an intruder they had every right to defend themselves as written in the constitution
0
Reply
Female 531
baalthazag, i would like to see your scientific proof that owning a gun makes you 28 times more likely to be killed by it.
0
Reply
Male 813
lmaonaise, if you knew ANYTHING at all about firearms, you would know how utterly drating stupid you just sounded.
0
Reply
Male 773
was it really necessary to even try and kill him? just blow away his kneecaps or something, everybody wins...
0
Reply
Male 16
This wouldn`t have even made the news in Texas.
0
Reply
Male 907
I agree with the law. You have many home invasions, but you can`t stop them because you aren`t allowed to kill or incapacitate the other person(s).
0
Reply
Female 761
Well, ya see, this is why I don`t drink.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
"I think the law is sound. You should have the right to defend your life (family)."

(Personal possessions and primal territory)

0
Reply
Male 355
Learn a lesson, dont drink, ever.
0
Reply
Male 3,255
That sucks, but at least I know I`ll never get shot in a situation like this. Call me square all you want, at least I know which house is mine 24/7/365! :P
0
Reply
Male 6
I think the law is sound. You should have the right to defend your life (family). Problem with this situation is that he didnt even attempt to warn the guy. How about yell at him or something? How about wound him? Shoot him in the chest!!? Personally I think the shooter was a little b%^tch! That guy should still be alive!
0
Reply
Male 953
To all you sympathetic asšholes who thinks it`s wrong to kill someone who breaks into your house I suggest you read more stories like this one before commenting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2904...

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.

0
Reply
Male 375
I know when I go home, I always break the glass in my back door to get in.
0
Reply
Male 2,121
""In theory this law would work well. However, combining it with legal guns doesn`t."

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.

0
Reply
Male 736
Charges can`t even be filed? I say. Kind of a black & white way of running things, isn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 119
Haha! Torizo, that post is full of large amounts of win.
0
Reply
Male 1,958
To quote Charlton Heston "You can have my guns when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

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.

0
Reply
Male 14,331
"WHAT A STUPID AND DANGEROUS LAW, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE A MAILMAN IN THIS AERA.
I PULLED THE TRIGGER AND NOW IS DEAD...
SO EASY"

LOL ya except the law wouldn`t cover that and youd be cherged with murder.

0
Reply
Male 316
I don`t own a gun but my house is filled with hundreds of deadly snakes. Would that count under the same law if I throw a bag of snakes on him?

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.

0
Reply
Male 907
"How`d a guy that drunk get outta the bar parking lot? Surprised he even found the right car..."

Exactly what I was thinking...

0
Reply
Female 876
Yes, because every American should have a gun.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
WHAT A STUPID AND DANGEROUS LAW, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE A MAILMAN IN THIS AERA.
I PULLED THE TRIGGER AND NOW IS DEAD...
SO EASY
0
Reply
Male 1,526
good law, to bad you aren`t allowed to protect yourself in most of europe.
0
Reply
Male 995
"Sarah, think about this, *if* George Bush had decided to become a Dictator, all of the Armed Citizens of the United States would be the Worlds First line of Defense against such a potentially horrible Tyrant."

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.

0
Reply
Female 1,142
Wow. A block away?
How`d a guy that drunk get outta the bar parking lot? Surprised he even found the right car...

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

0
Reply
Male 4,546
I`d rather neither of us had guns than both of us.

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.

0
Reply
Male 35
Wow, if I did this, I don`t think that I could easily live with killing a man.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
"In theory this law would work well. However, combining it with legal guns doesn`t."

So you`d rather let them break in and do whatever happy things they have planned for you?

0
Reply
Male 4,807
There was a home invasion robbery in Canada not to long ago and the home owner stabbed one to death and the other close to death. He was charged for murder cause he chased one off the property and stabby stab stab.
We don`t need no stinking guns when a butcher knife will do. LOL
0
Reply
Male 431
and its usually frowned upon when the victim is shot in the back... cant really say its self defence in that instance
0
Reply
Female 349
Thank you keatonatron. Sounds like a fair law to me.
0
Reply
Male 2,121
In theory this law would work well. However, combining it with legal guns doesn`t.
0
Reply
Male 679
"I`m from the UK, can someone clarify this for me? In the USA, are you allowed to shoot someone who enters your property?"

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.

0
Reply
Male 166
I had this argument once at a bar with a rather pretty but dim-witted defense lawyer. There is absolutely no excuse for breaking into another person`s home. For all in Europe who think this law is insane, what are you going to say? "Please don`t rape me/ my wife or daughter, please don`t take all the things I`ve worked for, please don`t kill me?" The idea that you can`t defend yourself in your own home is insane.
0
Reply
Female 349
I`m from the UK, can someone clarify this for me? In the USA, are you allowed to shoot someone who enters your property?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Atlacatl:

And you can`t separate a free man from his dogmatic hand-me-down catchphrases or he is not free.

0
Reply
Male 350
Everyone who thinks that law is stupid, isnt thinking at all. If someone is trying to break into your house, you definitely should have the right to defend yourself and your belongings.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
SarahJ:
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.

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.

0
Reply
Male 2,121
"HELL YES!

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).

0
Reply
Male 426
break into my house, prepare to get dead.
0
Reply
Male 2,388
make my day law is that a fuc*ing joke. :S
0
Reply
Male 342
Yea... he totally had it coming

and Sarah, you can`t separate a free man from his arms, otherwise he is not free.

0
Reply
Male 639
F-huck that. Surely you shouldn`t be allowed to shot and kill someone for entering your home.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
An Armed man is a Citizen, an Unarmed Man is a Subject.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Sarah, think about this, *if* George Bush had decided to become a Dictator, all of the Armed Citizens of the United States would be the Worlds First line of Defense against such a potentially horrible Tyrant.
0
Reply
Female 495
Now im thinking about it. In the UK if someone breaks into your house and accidentally hurts himself. You as the home owner are liable for their injury and can be sued as such. So really, UK and US seem to me both wrong on this and both polar extreems.
0
Reply
Male 119
The drunk guy broke the window trying to get into the house... Anyone here who says they wouldn`t have been scared pooless is a bold-faced liar.
0
Reply
Male 599
anybody know if SC has a law to that effect? If not I`m moving to Colorado...
0
Reply
Male 438
I wish they had that law here because then I could shoot all of the damn sales people that come here.
0
Reply
Female 495
Sad. But you get tragedy like that when you let all sorts of people own guns and give them the right to shoot. You guys have a great bill of rights, and they`re very important.. but this right to arms? That was one that may have been necessary at one point, but should not be in there today.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
HELL YES!

There`s no goddamn reason for the Homeowner to be Prosecuted at all, he was defending his property.

0
Reply
Male 889
Link: Homeowner Saved By `Make My Day` Law [Rate Link] - Moral of the story: If you`re drunk, make sure the house you`re breaking into is yours.
0
Reply