I have always believed it is the right of every person to defend themselves. According to some, you have no right to self-defense. In some places, even in your own home you are not permitted to defend yourself or your property.
So tell me. If you've made the grievous mistake of sleeping in your own bed and an armed stranger breaks into your house/apartment/hovel, do you deserve to die? Is it a crime to raise a finger in your own defense?
Tell me what you think?
~~Baloo
------------------ Beer lovers take note: Stroh's spelled backwards is "shorts."
posted
Each person must have the right to defend themself. Your example above is just one instance in which you are totally justified in blowing the guys head off with yer rifle.
------------------ "Remeber, if there is a nuclear explosion, be sure to close your windows as the massive heat could cause objects within your home to catch fire".
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
If the burglars were armed with Uzi's, this means that the burglars had an intent to kill. So blow their goddamned heads off. But they were armed with a crowbar, which means this was supposed to be a simple home invasion. You have a device which ejects buckshot at very painful speeds in a wide dispersion area. Sound a warning saying that you're armed and ready to blow their friggin heads off, and if they persist, blow their kneecaps. They can't do much with a crowbar once they've hit the deck.
I see that this article is supposed to support the conspiracy theory that the US Government is out to confiscate all firearms. I still don't see this happening yet, and at the same time, I don't believe total confiscation of all firearms is the answer.
"It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns."
The UK has somewhat bent over backwards with this with total gun confiscation. The Firearms Act of 1920 perhaps the best and most adequate law to be passed in regards to gun-control, while respecting the rights of private gun-owners. As for the laws in 1953 and 1967, I'm not sure if it either outlawed a private citizen from owning a firearm, or from a private citizen carrying a firearm in public. If it was the latter, it made perfect sense (you didn't want to get shot by the man whose foot you accidently stepped on, and you didn't know he had a concealed weapon). If it was the former, then it didn't.
After the Hungerford mass shooting, the weapon that should have been banned was the Kalashnikov Rifle involved in the shootings. I've heard that these rifles are only designed to kill and one of the more malicious rifles on the gun market. Likewise, after the Dunblane shooting, the semis too should have been banned. I may be wrong but I remember something about the shooter using an Uzi and a Tek-9, weapons that are only designed to kill and should be banned.
A person in the United States shoots and kills a person who stumbled into the wrong house looking for a party. He gets off on all charges. A person in UK shoots to defend against actual criminals and gets life. Looking at the article, I would point a finger of the DA's in this case. Vengeful DA's who used the justice system to twist the entire case against a possibly innocent man who shouldn't have been convicted at the first place.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited June 27, 2000).]
posted
I'd point to the media, as well. From this, I'd suppose that they're liberal (or what we call liberal) on your side of the pond, too. This man had every right to do what he did. Someone violates your rights, they're fair game. He had legitimate reason to think they were threatening his life.
"One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike..."
A direct threat is certainly grounds to shoot someone. Do you think these two thugs would have been going around robbing people and beating them up if they'd thought there was a chance they'd run up against the business end of a gun? 'Course not.
You have a right to life, and to property. You have a right to defend your rights, by whatever means nesecary. Thus, you have a right to defend your life and property, by whatever means nesecary to do so. Guns should not be outlawed. They are a legitimate means of self-defence.
Now those assault weapons that couldn't possibly be used in self-defence, those I'd go for outlawing the sale of. It would not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
I will point out that the Canadian Government's gun-control law is basically the same as the Firearms act as mentioned in the article. Except this law requires registration on most firearms and the owner to have a license to own firearms. Guns which fall outside the "most firearms" category, including shotguns (I think) and weapons only designed to kill are banned. This is the kind of law that I support. And no, I don't think the Canadian Government is lame enough to go on a "firearms confiscating campaign". Nor do I think the U.S. is going down that path either.
And who said the Media was impartial, anyways?
Omega: Now those assault weapons that couldn't possibly be used in self-defence, those I'd go for outlawing the sale of. It would not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.
Agreed. But I thought you were going to spout a large spiel on how gun-control is useless and requiring citizens to have a license and registration for guns is a very stupid thing. Does this mean we actually agree on something?
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited June 27, 2000).]
posted
Hey, I don't think there's any conceivable purpose behind a private citizin owning an assault rifle that can kill everyone in a room inside fifteen seconds, short of their house being assaulted by an entire army. Now if they were owned by the volunteer state militias, assuming that such a thing existed, that I'd go for.
But requiring a licence and registration for all guns IS a bad idea. Background check, definitely good, but what the article says happened in GB is exactly why there shouldn't be a central registry. Whether it WILL happen or not doesn't matter. I don't want there to be the slightest possibility of someone confiscating my guns.
------------------ "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
posted
Well, this former law student can give you a very general run down of the law as it exists in most of the good 'ol US of A, as his increasingly spotty memory recollects it.
Essentially, as long as the perpetrator is in retreat and is therefore not presenting a definite and immediate threat to you or your family, you can't just blow him to He**. That's considered murder, although I can't for the life of me figure out why. The law seems to take the view that the preservation of human life as public policy takes precedent over your right to protect your private property. However, let's say the perp is actually threatening you or a loved one, or if you REASONABLY believe that he was, then by all means lock and load!
The key here is the word "reasonable." Would a reasonable person believe that the burglar was threatening you with bodily harm, and act accordingly? Here in conservative Orange County, California, we dont have too many debates on this topic. If a criminal enters your home and you terminate him, well, that's his problem. He needs to fix that sudden bleeding problem. However, I recall reading cases about residents killing burglars, after which the resident was tried for homicide.
The bottom line here is that we should contact local law enforcement or a local lawyer to learn what the law is in our specific jurisdiction to protect ourselves from breaking the law if some DA thinks we've acted unreasonably. By the way, I'm not a lawyer, so don't take the above as legal advice - its just what I remember off the top of my head. I got tired of the law (I thought it was too focused on winning and not on finding the truth) so I left.
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
The media tends to make the erroneous assumption that criminals don't care about witnesses. The facts do not back this up. Nor do the numbers of unarmed homeowners killed after suprising burglars. ANY person entering your house without your permission is a threat.
Someone entering your house while you are HOME is likely to kill you. Why? Because, since criminals don't like witnesses, he's probably already planned for that contingency, and it doesn't worry him. Why should it worry you?
And a crowbar is an effective murder weapon. Brandishing it when it is no longer needed is a clear sign that it's going to be used for a purpose other than prying the window open.
Shooting to wound is a clean and easy way to bankrupt yourself and your family, because a surviving criminal will no DOUBT sue you, even if it IS frivolous. This is even more likely in a country like the US, which does not have a 'loser pays' lawsuit system to help prevent such things.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Something similar happened here in NY. A Rochester man shot a burglar who entered his house, wounding him. The local newspaper(Democrat and Chronicle) portrayed the man as a horrible evil man, while the burglar sued and pressed charges.
Luckily, the man was exonerated and the burglar was sent to jail.
------------------ "The lies I told are not falsehoods according to my definition of truth." Bill Clinton "All stupid people are liberals, because they don't know any better." Rob Rodehorst "Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - Dilbert, Scott Adams
posted
I completely agree with you about the crowbar example. A crowbar is a lethal weapon. If a burglar didn't intend to use it as such, then he wouldn't physically bring it into the house he is burgling. There would be no need.
Personally, I'm sick of this "let's all feel sorry for the criminal" crud. If someone enters my house without permission, armed, and with a clear intent to do mischief, then he's fair game. I'll draw the line at children who get lost and open the wrong door - hey, it happens. But if its three AM and some masked idiot breaks into my house, and he comes near me before the police can arrive, then look out - that's a clear threat to my person.
In law school the joke on this subject was that if you don't want the wounded burglar to sue you, well, you know what to do...
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
On the other side of the coin, what in your possession are you willing to die for?
Although not possessions...Family? sure... To protect yourself?...you bet. Self defense is a basic human right.
But what else.
A person enters your house to rob you...has a gun...as you reach for your gun you have to know that if there is shooting there is a chance you might be shot or even killed.
So what are you thinking as that happens. Your CD collection is more important than your life? Or how dare this fellow enter MY house!? Or what? I am quite curious...
------------------ Oh, goody, the Sea Monkeys I ordered have arrived. Heh heh heh, look at them cavort and caper. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
As First of Two has pointed out, if someone enters your house with a gun and steals stuff, he/she still might shoot you anyway so there aren't any witnesses.
------------------ June is National Accordion Awareness Month. "I love being British. We don't have to do any real work, we sit around looking smug, pointing at the US and saying 'We used to be young like that once.' Then we drink tea." - Liam Ka--thingy
Printer-friendly view of this topic
