The Truth About Gun Control

[Matt W]

So you're the reason why I never got any presents! How did you get rid of those reindeer on the roof?

[Samildanach]

I rang up animal control and they sent them down to the soup kitchens for the homeless. :p

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Wait... isn't breaking into my home a crime?? A crime punishable by incarceration, not execution. Thus why should I give him any more chances to prove his innocent intentions? Do you suggest that we there for execute for every crime? After all they have already proven their willingness to violate the law, who knows what else they are capable of! Next?

No, but consider this, evry person that breaks into a home does not hurt the people in the home..

But every time a home owner is killed/raped/beat, it's by someone that broke into thier home.

So for you, that chance of death/rape and beating for the homeowner is a risk, Just living they must take.

Sorry my life means more then some scum bag criminal who broke into my home.

i hope that you never get robbed, but if you do, and your wife is raped, your dauther raped, and you are beat to a pulp, I want you to remember, those guys doing it, did so because they knew people like you don't believe in self defense.

[blibbka]

Quote by: Samildanach Hmmm well I looked it up. Even though its a general purpose article rather than qualified legal advice. http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=296 If he believes that he is about to be attacked he can strike pre-emptively. There is no requirement to retreat when attacked even if the opportunity to do so presents itself. If the jury decides that a person may have been acting in the honest belief that it was necessary for him to defend himself, they must then consider whether the amount of force used was reasonable taking into consideration the circumstances and the danger that person honestly believed himself to be in at the time with the emphasis on the believed bit.

Well, I think that the guides above are quite fair. Basically, yes you have the right to self defense (of course), and that can be pre-emptive if you feel in imminent danger. And it's up to the court to decide whether the person in question has over-reacted.

But you can't allow people to, for example, knock the burglar out, and then instead of calling the police have them continue to batter the intruder to a bloody pulp and then say afterwards "well, he was on my property, so ......"

[Matt W]

*bing*

Once more, Mr. V puts words in our mouths. Did you read any of what I posted there? I'm fairly certain Chris is with me on this - just because we don't believe in gunning people down, doesn't mean we don't believe in self-defense.

Now, sit back. Re-read that statement. Read it again, just for kicks. Now, feel the joys of comprehension....

[blibbka]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No, but consider this, evry person that breaks into a home does not hurt the people in the home.. But every time a home owner is killed/raped/beat, it's by someone that broke into thier home. So for you, that chance of death/rape and beating for the homeowner is a risk, Just living they must take. Sorry my life means more then some scum bag criminal who broke into my home. i hope that you never get robbed, but if you do, and your wife is raped, your dauther raped, and you are beat to a pulp, I want you to remember, those guys doing it, did so because they knew people like you don't believe in self defense.

Nobody is saying you don't have the right to self-defense. Of course you do. What I disagree with is that the home-owner has the right to kill anybody who breaks into their home, regardless of the circumstances.

[Samildanach]

Yeah but Vic's point is you are better to error on the side of too much force than not enough.
Reasonable force is pretty much a cop out in my opinion. Its like someone getting run over by a train for standing on the tracks. Shouldnt have been there expect to die.

[Chris the Chees]

If someone breaks into my house, and I need to defend my self, be sure that I will try my very up most to inform him of the rule of three hits: -

“I hit him with a cricket bat, he hits the floor and the ambulance hits 100 taking him to hospital.”

There is a difference between gunning someone down, and defending your self.

[Mr.Vicchio]

A bat...

You got your bat, your scared, it's late. He and his two buddies got knives.

You lose.

The question of who made me Judge Jury and Executioner? He did by breaking into my house.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio A bat... You got your bat, your scared, it's late. He and his two buddies got knives. You lose. The question of who made me Judge Jury and Executioner? He did by breaking into my house.

Trust me, in the same way scissors beats paper, and paper beats stone. A hefty cricket bat beats a knife.

If you hit someone across the head with a cricket bat, they aren't going to be getting up for a couple of hours.

As for your non-argument; if I had a gun then the probability he and his two mates also have guns, either way I lose.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio A bat... You got your bat, your scared, it's late. He and his two buddies got knives. You lose. The question of who made me Judge Jury and Executioner? He did by breaking into my house.

I'm sorry, in which civilisation do you currently reside?

[Samildanach]

The jungle same as we always have, its just a different jungle is all. what would you try pooey? Beat them to death with rhetoric?

[blibbka]

I would also err on the side of too much force than not enough, Samildanach. I still do not believe that "erring on the side of too much force" and setting out to kill someone, tresspasser or not, equate to the same thing.

I'm trying (unsuccessfully, right now) to find some reliable statistics to show how many people have received sentances for harming burglars, the circumstances of these incidents, and ideally some information on instances where the homeowner has not recieved a sentance for harming the intruder. Not easy to find all this info.

I think the law is well balanced as it is, and that the current "criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens" stuff (e.g. Tony Martin the "hero") is largely tabloid hysteria.

[Matt W]

Incorrect, Mr. V. Doesn't the government legislate what you can do in your own home? Yes it does. Are you a law enforcement officer in your own home? No, you're not. Therefore, you in no way get any extra rights just because someone's breaking in.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Maybe in your country, in the USA.. well most states, if you break into someones home, and they kill you, no sympathy, you shouldn't have broken into thier home.

[Pooeypants]

I didn't know theft was punishable by death. Is that how it is in your state?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Theft isn't. Intrusion of a home is.

Question, how do you determine the intent of someone that breaks into your house.


Are you really that comfortable giving someone willing to take that step the benifit of the doubt that he will not do anything untoward you or your family?

[blibbka]

Intrusion of a home is punishable by death? If that't the case, you have some pretty tough laws.

You can't determine the intention of someone breaking into your house. The fact that someone is somewhere they shouldn't be, and they MIGHT be thinking of killing you / family, should not make you automatically excempt from the law.

If the imagined possibility of your own death is the justification, then that would justify you killing pretty much anybody who is hostile. The precedent it sets is over the top.

Personally, if someone broke into my house, yes I would be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt that they are not there to kill me. I would still defend myself however necessary, but I would approach the situation realistically: There's a burglar in my house, he / she is here to nick stuff, not to kill me.

Suppose the intruder walked into the house because the property owner had left the door unlocked. Would it still be justifiable for the home owner to kill the intruder then?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yes it would.

Entering another home is illegal. Doing so puts YOUR life in THIER hands. Thus, break intoa house/enter it without permission, and the owner puts a .45 round in your chest, you have only yourself to blame.

[USMC Retired]

Quote by: Matt W Ah, the joys of ignoring 'innocent 'til proven guilty'.... Seriously. Fine, do whatever you wish, USMC Retired. Try not to insult other countries that don't, and won't adopt your position, willya?

Matt, in the scenarios we have been discussing, they are automatically GUILTY. Guilty of being in my home, without my permission. As such, they are guilty of criminal trespass, and an automatic THREAT to the safety of my family. Being a threat to my family by their unauthorized presence in my home gives me the RIGHT to take whatever actions necessary to protect my family. End of story.

However, I would enjoy knowing how YOU (in the scenarios under discussion at this point) could do anything BUT "assume the worst", and use whatever weapon(s) available to you to protect your family. The attitude you seem to portray is one oh "oh well, they are "probablly" not dangerous.... and afterall, they ARE 'innocent 'til proven guilty' (your words from above). They are in your HOUSE man, with your wife and children. I don't know what wedding vows YOU took, but part of mine included the word PROTECT! And I take that word, as well as ALL the other words in my vow SERIOUSLY. Not just part of them, not just sometimes...... ALLL THE TIME, Love, honor, cherish, PROTECT.