[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by Troll:
So as soon as there no stupid people on the planet, we can all have guns.

I Couldnt have said it any better myself. But hey. You will always have "stupid people" in life, because not everyone agree's with each other, Look at George W. Bush Jr. Enough Said.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
Since he was watching the car get stolen from the window of his home, I'd think there's enough time for him to rent a car or call the police to come and pick him up or borrow a car from a friend no?

In that instance. What if the doctor isn't watching his car being nicked?

[Athens]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Well I have a good response to your post Troll, that is what happens when people are stupid with guns. Im not saying children should never be exposed to firearms, im just saying they should be very well educated on safety principles. Ive been shooting since I was 6yrs old, Ive grow up with guns, its COMMON SENSE & SECOND NATURE to me to be safe with guns. But very few children have the knowledge I do, thus leading to serious/fatal accidents, those who would let their children around them without making sure that they are empty, no rounds chambered and safeties on, I say the parent deserves to die for endangering their child(ren)

which is why we need to have gun control laws to prevent stupid adults from owning guns and to make sure people that shouldnt have guns have a harder time getting guns, like insane people.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
So, you don't think you should have to say, "Oy, what are you doing over there," and give him a chance to run away before you pop a thief?

No, because if you do that he'll just be back to finish the job when you're not around. Shoot him and he can't do it again to anyone else (like the hypothetical doctor just about to go out on call to save some lives).

[Athens]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
I Couldnt have said it any better myself. But hey. You will always have "stupid people" in life, because not everyone agree's with each other, Look at George W. Bush Jr. Enough Said.

Look at 50 + 1% of the United States Population

No, because if you do that he'll just be back to finish the job when you're not around. Shoot him and he can't do it again to anyone else (like the hypothetical doctor just about to go out on call to save some lives).

no thats why you call the cops and let them take him in. You do have cops there don't you?

[BC_SIG]

HHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh them bloody yanks, they've all gone flippin loopy in me mind. Just end this trigger happy bollocks and send me on my way!! LOL Anywho, it takes time for the police to get there, have you all not seen Bowling For Columbine? The lady in the US Woodland with her daughter has a very good point, cut out the middle man (THE POLICE), in some cases i can see it neccesary to cut out the police if you are being shot at and have to retaliate (return fire) for survival purposes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
So, you don't think you should have to say, "Oy, what are you doing over there," and give him a chance to run away before you pop a thief?

If you trust your citizens so much, why doesn't America just remove murder from the statute books.

First of all, we aren't talking about murder, we are talking about self-defense. Get the legal category right.

As for warnings, I'd leave that to case by case adjudication. There are probably situations where a warning is all that is necessary. In fact, that's the very reason why I think it is important that society send the legal message that self-defense is legitimate. It acts as a warning. So could a sign on property, or as I mentioned before, the chick-chick of a pump action, or in some situations, a warning shout. The purpose here isn't to get into a firefight. It's obviously better to avoid one if you can do so without placing you and your family at the mercy of the people breaking in. It's like any form of defense. The best defense is what works, and not ruling means out for ideological reasons.

However, I wouldn't require a warning either. As I said before, the criminal is already on notice by his decision to break in. So I see no legal reason to potentially hand him the advantage. A warning might put the homeowner in danger by telling the criminal which way to shoot. That seems unreasonable.

The bottom line is this. In most states, you have the right to self defense, but you also have to justify your actions afterwards on a case-by-case basis. As long as it is reasonable self-defense, then it's OK. But don't what if it with unreasonable actions. That's just a strawman.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Athens:
No thats a end result and a bandaid solution. To actually fix the root causes, there shouldnt be a crime in the first place to lock a person up.

You're mistaken if you think that you can prevent crime via social engineering. It's never going to happen.

Originally posted by Athens:
I never said I was against it, but people are stupid to think they can defend themselfs like they think they can and worst that its better to kill in protection of items, its just wrong.

Who says that killing in protection of items is wrong? At what level? Where do we draw the line? Are we going to allow the thieves to take essential items like the aformentioned defribulators? Are the US Army going to say "sure you can take that nuke without us trying to kill you, it's only property, after all".
Who then decides what essential items are?

Originally posted by Athens:
Takes a little of everything. Cant make a cake with just eggs.

We've done it that way for long enough. Didn't work.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
You seem to go a lot further than that. The presumptions you support allow individuals to kill thieves even if they pose no danger to the individual's security.

If a person breaks into my home they immediately pose a danger to my security. I'm not going to just shoot someone if I can plainly see that they're unarmed, I'll just hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive (I've done that before). However, if they appear to be armed, or if I'm unable to make a distinction, I will shoot to kill.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Athens:
no thats why you call the cops and let them take him in. You do have cops there don't you?

We have traffic cops. And thought police. But not any real ones.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First of all, we aren't talking about murder, we are talking about self-defense. Get the legal category right.

As for warnings, I'd leave that to case by case adjudication. There are probably situations where a warning is all that is necessary. In fact, that's the very reason why I think it is important that society send the legal message that self-defense is legitimate. It acts as a warning. So could a sign on property, or as I mentioned before, the chick-chick of a pump action, or in some situations, a warning shout. The purpose here isn't to get into a firefight. It's obviously better to avoid one if you can do so without placing you and your family at the mercy of the people breaking in. It's like any form of defense. The best defense is what works, and not ruling means out for ideological reasons.

However, I wouldn't require a warning either. As I said before, the criminal is already on notice by his decision to break in. So I see no legal reason to potentially hand him the advantage. A warning might put the homeowner in danger by telling the criminal which way to shoot. That seems unreasonable.

The bottom line is this. In most states, you have the right to self defense, but you also have to justify your actions afterwards on a case-by-case basis. As long as it is reasonable self-defense, then it's OK. But don't what if it with unreasonable actions. That's just a strawman.

you know the funny thing is in South Africa, people defend themselfs with Bazokas, Flame Throwers, small explosives, fully automatic machine guns, yet the crime is still the worst in teh world. Weapons dont make you safer.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
HHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh them bloody yanks, they've all gone flippin loopy in me mind. Just end this trigger happy bollocks and send me on my way!! LOL Anywho, it takes time for the police to get there, have you all not seen Bowling For Columbine? The lady in the US Woodland with her daughter has a very good point, cut out the middle man (THE POLICE), in some cases i can see it neccesary to cut out the police if you are being shot at and have to retaliate (return fire) for survival purposes.

My Grandmas 711 was robbed 2 days ago, they cought the guy 1 hour later 10 KM away. Nuff said.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Athens:
you know the funny thing is in South Africa, people defend themselfs with Bazokas, Flame Throwers, small explosives, fully automatic machine guns, yet the crime is still the worst in teh world. Weapons dont make you safer.

It's the mentality, not the weapon.

[BC_SIG]

It truely puzzles me as to how they actually kill each other, a lot of the weapons weigh more then the South African people, and you see 8yr old withs Kalashnikov's that are bigger then , and they shoot them like rambo shoots his M60DX machine gun. How the hell do they kill each other? lol
http://www.consolevision.com/members...sms2/rambo.jpg

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
you know the funny thing is in South Africa, people defend themselfs with Bazokas, Flame Throwers, small explosives, fully automatic machine guns, yet the crime is still the worst in teh world. Weapons dont make you safer.

You know, its an amazing things about the world. Trite comparisons can make mincemeat of a decent argument. The US isn't South Africa. And while the US does have a high crime rate, it has been falling. Occupied residency home invasions, which is what we are talking about, are quite unusual here. They are especially unusual in states with liberal gun laws. Now, is that because criminals know they are likely to be shot if they break in? Is it because low crime areas tend to be rural areas that elect politicians (of both parties) who respect individual rights but where it is a coincidence that there is little crime there? Is it a bit of both?

It's hard to say. But it is easy to say that the only variable between South Africa and, say, South Carolina isn't just gun ownership. There is probably a bit more to it than that.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
You're mistaken if you think that you can prevent crime via social engineering. It's never going to happen.

Never know until its tried. And im sorry but overall crime has been in decline for 20 years here with the exception of autotheift.

Who says that killing in protection of items is wrong? At what level? Where do we draw the line? Are we going to allow the thieves to take essential items like the aformentioned defribulators? Are the US Army going to say "sure you can take that nuke without us trying to kill you, it's only property, after all".
Who then decides what essential items are?

Lets see, moral people, the bible, the Koran, killing a person is permanent, it cant be undone. Life is just to valuable to kill specially for a cheap item.

We've done it that way for long enough. Didn't work.

Ya can I ask you how your war on drugs is going btw? When will that way be long enough. Oh what about Iraq, when will that be long enough too? Like how you pick and choose what�s enough and what�s not.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You know, its an amazing things about the world. Trite comparisons can make mincemeat of a decent argument. The US isn't South Africa. And while the US does have a high crime rate, it has been falling. Occupied residency home invasions, which is what we are talking about, are quite unusual here. They are especially unusual in states with liberal gun laws. Now, is that because criminals know they are likely to be shot if they break in? Is it because low crime areas tend to be rural areas that elect politicians (of both parties) who respect individual rights but where it is a coincidence that there is little crime there? Is it a bit of both?

It's hard to say. But it is easy to say that the only variable between South Africa and, say, South Carolina isn't just gun ownership. There is probably a bit more to it than that.

I was just pointing out no matter how armed you are you cant really protect youself the way you think you can. Also LA does get alot of BNE's and home invasions, SC might not but there are places in teh US that does.



Anyways I really got to get to bed, I cringe to the idea of what I will find when I wake up, at this rate it will be 400 posts to catch up and respond too. God im tired.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
My Grandmas 711 was robbed 2 days ago, they cought the guy 1 hour later 10 KM away. Nuff said.

About a year and a half ago, a restaurant 3 blocks from where I lived at the time was broken into one Saturday morning. In DC, guns are illegal, so the only people armed were the criminals. They tied up the staff of three (missing the fourth who hid upstairs), took about $5000 from the till, then shot all three each in the back of the head.

About a year later, they caught the robbers. One of them was a former employee. It was an inside job. They killed the staff because one of them recognized the former employee.

If anecdotes are enough for you, enough said.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Athens:
Never know until its tried. And im sorry but overall crime has been in decline for 20 years here with the exception of autotheift.

Ummm. No. Where are you talking about? Vancouver?

Originally posted by Athens:
Lets see, moral people, the bible, the Koran, killing a person is permanent, it cant be undone. Life is just to valuable to kill specially for a cheap item.

A cheap item that saves lives, like a defribulator?

Besides, stealing and crashing my 328 GTB is permanent and can't be undone. If I shoot you before you steal it, will I be saving the life of the person who you might have killed because you can't handle it?

Originally posted by Athens:
Ya can I ask you how your war on drugs is going btw?

I'm not having a war on drugs.

Originally posted by Athens:
Oh what about Iraq, when will that be long enough too?

Don't know. Nowt to do with me.

Originally posted by Athens:
Like how you pick and choose what�s enough and what�s not.

Now, repeat after me: Sherwin is not American and doesn't live in America, so doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
About a year and a half ago, a restaurant 3 blocks from where I lived at the time was broken into one Saturday morning. In DC, guns are illegal, so the only people armed were the criminals. They tied up the staff of three (missing the fourth who hid upstairs), took about $5000 from the till, then shot all three each in the back of the head.

About a year later, they caught the robbers. One of them was a former employee. It was an inside job. They killed the staff because one of them recognized the former employee.

If anecdotes are enough for you, enough said.

Hey BC_SIG, how many robberies that end up as murder here to you remember. I can recall one every 3-4 years. In total domestic disputes, random crime, everything combined there are about 12 murders a year in Vancouver. And most of those are criminals killing criminals.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Ummm. No. Where are you talking about? Vancouver?



A cheap item that saves lives, like a defribulator?

Besides, stealing and crashing my 328 GTB is permanent and can't be undone. If I shoot you before you steal it, will I be saving the life of the person who you might have killed because you can't handle it?



I'm not having a war on drugs.



Don't know. Nowt to do with me.



Now, repeat after me: Sherwin is not American and doesn't live in America, so doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

You sound like a American.

[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by Athens:
I was just pointing out no matter how armed you are you cant really protect youself the way you think you can. Also LA does get alot of BNE's and home invasions, SC might not but there are places in teh US that does.

Actually you can, I have body armour that can stop a .30cal Armour peircing round, Level4 Kevlar, hard as f*ck to get as well, along with a CG634 Kevlar Helmet. CF Issue. Shhh dont tell. ASP baton, X26 50,000Volt Taser, Mace, Garrett Metal detector, and other items in my armoury, to intruders: MAKE MY F*CKING DAY.

[DBursey]

This dude really needs to start a new militia in Michigan or Montana!

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Athens:
You sound like a American.

That's only because you've never met any proper Englishmen.

[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by Athens:
Hey BC_SIG, how many robberies that end up as murder here to you remember. I can recall one every 3-4 years. In total domestic disputes, random crime, everything combined there are about 12 murders a year in Vancouver. And most of those are criminals killing criminals.

Robberies hmm, that one a couple years back, was in Burnaby am I correct? other then that, it is Gang related shootings in the surrey/burnaby/van area. we dont get that many murders, last big one was that Picton Pig Farm.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Actually you can, I have body armour that can stop a .30cal Armour peircing round, Level4 Kevlar, hard as f*ck to get as well, along with a CG634 Kevlar Helmet. CF Issue. Shhh dont tell. ASP baton, X26 50,000Volt Taser, Mace, Garrett Metal detector, and other items in my armoury, to intruders: MAKE MY F*CKING DAY.

you ware it 24/7? Every time I chat with you on the web cam you dont even have a shirt on LOL

[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by Athens:
you ware it 24/7? Every time I chat with you on the web cam you dont even have a shirt on LOL

Not 24/7, I have that for the most extreme situations, or riots, you never know. I like to have the best. So be it. I do wear my 1110 IIIA vest on way more occasions, like for the security work I have done for the last few years, where possibility of being shot is much greater. Come WW3, if they dont NUKE us all, but even if they do, my basement is built to withstand at last three nuclear blast. I would be inside there watching James Bond & listening to JEM.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Athens:
You sound like a American.

Yes, he's impressed me on many occasions.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No, because if you do that he'll just be back to finish the job when you're not around. Shoot him and he can't do it again to anyone else (like the hypothetical doctor just about to go out on call to save some lives).

Hold on, how does he kill you when you're not around? Or are you really saying that a life is worth less than a television?

As I said, this comes down to whether you believe in killing people to defend your property. You'll have to forgive us if the rest of us write laws that put you in jail for killing thieves because we don't approve.

[BC_SIG]

So this leaves me curious about other users, what do you guys have that you can bring to the party? lol, by that I mean, what TOYS do you have? firearms/tactical equip/ect? or am I the odd man out?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
Hold on, how does he kill you when you're not around? Or are you really saying that a life is worth less than a television?

Yes. A burglar's life is worth less than my peace of mind.

Originally posted by Troll:
As I said, this comes down to whether you believe in killing people to defend your property.

Yep. A thief has no more right to my property than I have to ending his life. But the thief doesn't just take property - he takes property, sense of security, memories, convenience, etc., etc.. He doesn't stop to think whether I need that item he's taking - he just takes it regardless. He ain't worrying about my life, why should I worry about his?

Originally posted by Troll:
You'll have to forgive us if the rest of us write laws that put you in jail for killing thieves because we don't approve.

If the rest of you made laws which actually punished thieves to the extent that theft wasn't a viable course of action for anyone, then we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First of all, we aren't talking about murder, we are talking about self-defense. Get the legal category right.

You're such a pompous ass, aren't you? You actually try not to understand the point being made just you can act like a tosser!

Your point was that the difference between the US and other nanny states like the UK is that you trust your citizens. Meaning that the State in America trusts their citizens to only kill when necessary. Funny then that you have a law against murder. Seems you actually need laws just like everyone else?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, I wouldn't require a warning either. As I said before, the criminal is already on notice by his decision to break in. So I see no legal reason to potentially hand him the advantage. A warning might put the homeowner in danger by telling the criminal which way to shoot. That seems unreasonable.

Do you concede that the majority of burglars are not trying to get into the house to kill you? Assuming you do, how is killing a burglar before you've said anything to him, a matter of self-defence? It seems to me that you're talking about PROPERTY defense not self-defence.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The bottom line is this. In most states, you have the right to self defense, but you also have to justify your actions afterwards on a case-by-case basis. As long as it is reasonable self-defense, then it's OK. But don't what if it with unreasonable actions. That's just a strawman.

You know as well as I do that the approach you described in the last paragraph is not the law and that if you follow that approach you're going straight to jail without collecting 200! If a guy is breaking into your house and you shoot him dead without warning before he's presented any kind of threat to you, you're going to jail for murder. In any state.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
If the rest of you made laws which actually punished thieves to the extent that theft wasn't a viable course of action for anyone, then we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

Have you ever stolen anything in your life before? A biscuit from your mother's cookie jar, an ashtray from a bar? Have you ever met a convicted thief?

[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yes. A burglar's life is worth less than my peace of mind.



Yep. A thief has no more right to my property than I have to ending his life. But the thief doesn't just take property - he takes property, sense of security, memories, convenience, etc., etc.. He doesn't stop to think whether I need that item he's taking - he just takes it regardless. He ain't worrying about my life, why should I worry about his?



If the rest of you made laws which actually punished thieves to the extent that theft wasn't a viable course of action for anyone, then we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

Hey Sherwin, I think, you are CRAZY, i thought I was pretty odd but hell, I would only shoot a robber with a less-then-lethal round, but your all out F*CKED.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
Have you ever stolen anything in your life before? A biscuit from your mother's cookie jar, an ashtray from a bar?

No, I haven't (except a few kisses).

Stupid argument anyway - hiking a cookie from momma's jar doesn't have the same psychological effects (or physical inconveniences) as a break-in or the theft of one's transport. Neither does grabbing an ashtray from a bar (the publican expects it, in the same manner that hotels expect you to nick their shampoo).

Originally posted by Troll:
Have you ever met a convicted thief?

Yep. Didn't like him.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No, I haven't (except a few kisses).

You're one in a gazillion then Sherwin. My point is that everyone makes mistakes. They shouldn't have to die for them!

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Neither does grabbing an ashtray from a bar (the publican expects it, in the same manner that hotels expect you to nick their shampoo).

I expect someone to break into my house and steal my Taylor guitar (that has sentimental and material worth) that's why it's insured! You don't have insurance? You don't expect to be burgled at some point?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Hey Sherwin, I think, you are CRAZY, i thought I was pretty odd but hell, I would only shoot a robber with a less-then-lethal round, but your all out F*CKED.

Nope. I simply understand the damaging effects that crime can have on a society. I've seen people who've been robbed scared to go out (in case they get mugged) and scared to stay in (in case they get burgled).
What kind of society is it we're creating where we don't slam down hard on the people who cause these problems? Why the hell is anyone defending the rights of these scumbags? Screw 'em!

Look at it this way... If I don't take the thief down when he does my house, is he going to end up in a situation where he's battering an old lady in the next house he breaks into?

Some of us still retain a sense of civic duty towards those less able to defend themselves.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
I expect someone to break into my house and steal my Taylor guitar (that has sentimental and material worth) that's why it's insured! You don't have insurance? You don't expect to be burgled at some point?

You wouldn't prefer a society where that guitar remains yours until you, not some scumbag, decide you no longer want it? How do you think this society is going to happen if we keep letting the scumbags get away with it?

I only wish it were that simple for insurance to replace my stuff. Most of it is no longer made and as rare as it gets.

[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Nope. I simply understand the damaging effects that crime can have on a society. I've seen people who've been robbed scared to go out (in case they get mugged) and scared to stay in (in case they get burgled).
What kind of society is it we're creating where we don't slam down hard on the people who cause these problems? Why the hell is anyone defending the rights of these scumbags? Screw 'em!

Look at it this way... If I don't take the thief down when he does my house, is he going to end up in a situation where he's battering an old lady in the next house he breaks into?

Some of us still retain a sense of civic duty towards those less able to defend themselves.

Well you have a good point, a bit extreme some would say, tho the fact of battering the elderly because of the general physical disadvantage they have, that is about as low as you can get, One who would commit to such crime, deserves death, but having him put in the hole and being bubba's b*tch is more satisfying. If he wants to pick on people, then they will pick on him 10 fold.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
Well you have a good point, a bit extreme some would say, tho the fact of battering the elderly because of the general physical disadvantage they have, that is about as low as you can get, One who would commit to such crime, deserves death, but having him put in the hole and being bubba's b*tch is more satisfying. If he wants to pick on people, then they will pick on him 10 fold.

I'm all in favour of sending them to be bubba's girlfriend for a very, very long time if the situation allows. Trouble is, there's never a copper around when you need one - and in this event any force needed to stop the guy from either harming you or taking your stuff should be legal. If you can disable him without killing him, fine. If you have to kill him to stop him, what's the big deal? It's only a scumbag.

And of course the main point is: Thievery will substantially decrease if the crims think they're risking their lives at every venture. 'Coz you know, they ain't the bravest people out there - if they were they'd be properly brave and get a job like most of the rest of us have to.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You're such a pompous ass, aren't you? You actually try not to understand the point being made just you can act like a tosser! When you argue so dishonestly you deserve to be slapped for it. Tosser.

I made that point for a particular reason. When you use a term like "murder" you are making a value statement that prejudges the issue. Actually, what we are talking about here is an affirmative defense to a potential charge of murder. Or more likely, manslaughter. You were misleading and prejudging.

our point was that the difference between the US and other nanny states like the UK is that you trust your citizens. Meaning that the State in America trusts their citizens to only kill when necessary. Funny then that you have a law against murder. Seems you actually need laws just like everyone else?

There is a law against murder to convict people who commit murder. But not all killing is unlawful or murder. Killing in self defense is an example. We trust our citizens to be able to defend themselves, should the need arise. However, if they commit murder (as defined in law), then of course, they should be charged, tried, and convicted of such.

Do you concede that the majority of burglars are not trying to get into the house to kill you? Assuming you do, how is killing a burglar before you've said anything to him, a matter of self-defence? It seems to me that you're talking about PROPERTY defense not self-defence.

I have no idea what the statistics are, and I see no reason why we need to get into mindreading the intent of a person breaking in. His interests are entirely irrelevant. My point is that whatever the subjective intent of the burglar is, the act of breaking in will put the person in the house in fear of his life and safety. Whether that fear is objectively justified us unknowable to him, or to anyone else -- except the burglar. You are simply making an assumption that requires the victim to bear the risk that your rosy assumption is wrong. But in most US states what the law does is allow the victim to make a justified worse case assumption that takes account of the reality of the situation and the legitimate right to self defense. I think that is entirely reasonable.

You know as well as I do that the approach you described in the last paragraph is not the law and that if you follow that approach you're going straight to jail without collecting 200! If a guy is breaking into your house and you shoot him dead without warning before he's presented any kind of threat to you, you're going to jail for murder. In any state.

You are wrong about that. It varies from state to state, but what I described is a reasonable summary of the way most states handle it. As I said, some states simply have a blanket statute that covers the matter.

[BC_SIG]

SimeyTheLimey wrote:
You are wrong about that. It varies from state to state, but what I described is a reasonable summary of the way most states handle it. As I said, some states simply have a blanket statute that covers the matter.

ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME??? MURDER 1 VARIES FROM STATE TO STATE, WITHOUT WARNING , THAT IS MANSLAUGHTER IN ANY CONSTITION IN ANY COUNTRY,AND IN AMERICA, YOU ARE ON DEATH ROWS #1 LIST. I Dont know where you read or were told that, but I would really like to see or talk to whomever said that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BC_SIG:
SimeyTheLimey wrote:
You are wrong about that. It varies from state to state, but what I described is a reasonable summary of the way most states handle it. As I said, some states simply have a blanket statute that covers the matter.

ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME??? MURDER 1 VARIES FROM STATE TO STATE, WITHOUT WARNING , THAT IS MANSLAUGHTER IN ANY CONSTITION IN ANY COUNTRY,AND IN AMERICA, YOU ARE ON DEATH ROWS #1 LIST. I Dont know where you read or were told that, but I would really like to see or talk to whomever said that.

The use of capital letters isn't terribly impressive.

I don't have time to pull the statutes right now, but i am correct about the statutes. They do exist, although not in every state by any means.

However, most state, in fact, probably all states do allow self defense as a valid affirmative defense. That includes even states with strict gun laws. So for example, it is possible to kill in self defense, not face any conviction for murder or manslaughter, but be convicted of illegal gun ownership (which is often just a misdemenor).

[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The use of capital letters isn't terribly impressive.

I don't have time to pull the statutes right now, but i am correct about the statutes. They do exist, although not in every state by any means.

However, most state, in fact, probably all states do allow self defense as a valid affirmative defense. That includes even states with strict gun laws. So for example, it is possible to kill in self defense, not face any conviction for murder or manslaughter, but be convicted of illegal gun ownership (which is often just a misdemenor).

Sorry for the extensive CAPS LOCK usage, but oh my god, you live in one f*cked up little country. Anyone I know would consider shooting a man without warning, cold blooded murder, if American lets that fly, then you all need a lot of bolts tightened.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The use of capital letters isn't terribly impressive.

I don't have time to pull the statutes right now, but i am correct about the statutes. They do exist, although not in every state by any means.

However, most state, in fact, probably all states do allow self defense as a valid affirmative defense. That includes even states with strict gun laws. So for example, it is possible to kill in self defense, not face any conviction for murder or manslaughter, but be convicted of illegal gun ownership (which is often just a misdemenor).

That's the rule in most nanny states too, but it's not what we were talking about now is it. Your assertion was that killing someone trying to break into your home before warning them is legal in the US.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are wrong about that. It varies from state to state, but what I described is a reasonable summary of the way most states handle it. As I said, some states simply have a blanket statute that covers the matter.

how are you going to prove that the person who you shot (and killed) was threatning your life (presuming of course there weren't any witnesses)? i can't imagine there being any law that just 'allows' people to shoot intruders.

[BC_SIG]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
how are you going to prove that the person who you shot (and killed) was threatning your life (presuming of course there weren't any witnesses)? i can't imagine there being any law that just 'allows' people to shoot intruders.

Thank you very much Roberto, that was the EXACT point I was trying to point out, but it just wouldnt make it into his skull, but maybe is I use an engraver, and mark in onto the side of a bullet and shoot him, them maybe, just maybe he will get are point.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Athens:
Here is a couple problems with your argument, 1, you need to have that loaded gun on your person at all times to be effective. If a group of people burst in while you are watching TV, and your gun is stored in your drawer beside your bed, good luck getting to it in time.

I wrote this in my post: "It also seems to me that b and c are inversely related: If you keep it so locked up that kids can't get it, for example, it becomes less accessible for preventing a crime." I agree it is a problem. It puts gun safety in the home at odds with self-protection.

2nd, unless you posters all over your property saying I am armed and willing to shoot you, a criminal wont know you are armed and then it wont be a deterent to prevent the crime.

True, but I was talking about using the gun itself to deter the crime, not the knowledge that a gun may be present. Maybe you could put NRA stickers on your windows.

3rd in the situation that you do have your loaded gun ready when some one bursts into your home for your money or something, and you manage to draw it out, what you have is a fire fight, bullets flying both directions. Sure you might kill the guy bursting in, and even come out of it unhurt, but what about your wife who was on the couch now slumped over with a bullet in her head? Chances are if you didnt fight back, you would have all ended up tied up and poorer, but all still have your health. Of course then again what happens if you drop that loaded gun at dinner and some one gets shot in the foot, of 14 year old billy thinks its cool and shows his friends and accedently kills him. Well his in jail now. Or worst shoots himself. What if 14 year old billy is getting bullied at school and only means to scare some one. Access to guns in no way makes things safer. And as I said useless if the gun isnt on you all times loaded.

Everything you say here is consistent with what I put in my post. You have to compare the odds that you will successfully deter a crime to the odds that someone in your family may be injured with the gun. I think it's very clear how the odds fall out - it's not smart having the gun, at least if you live in a low-crime area, have kids, etc. If you're in a high-crime area and live alone so there's no danger to another family member, the balance may tip in the other direction, at least in theory. But the other part of this that should be factored in is the availability of other, safer protection methods, like an alarm system in the home.

I think you could apply the same reasoning to the guns-in-cockpits issue. IMO, it's more likely that a gun on a plane would increase the risk to innocent passengers than it would be used to deter a hijacking.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Athens:
My Grandmas 711 was robbed 2 days ago, they cought the guy 1 hour later 10 KM away. Nuff said.

stop generalizing. thanks.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
how are you going to prove that the person who you shot (and killed) was threatning your life (presuming of course there weren't any witnesses)? i can't imagine there being any law that just 'allows' people to shoot intruders.

There is a huge body of law that says exactly that.

For example, here is a collection of cases: The cite is AMJUR HOMICIDE � 167

� 167. WHERE ATTACK IS IN ONE'S OWN HOME OR DWELLING

Regardless of any general theory to retreat as far as practicable before one can justify turning upon his assailant and taking life in self-defense, the law imposes no duty to retreat upon one who, free from fault in bringing on a difficulty, is attacked at or in his or her own dwelling or home. [FN34] Upon the theory that a man's house is his castle, and that he has a right to protect it and those within it from intrusion or attack, the rule is practically universal that when a person is attacked in his own dwelling he may stand at bay and turn on and kill his assailant if this is apparently necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily harm. [FN35]

The collection of cases is quite impressive.

Here's one example of the kind of statute I was talking about:

Code of Alabama Currentness (Refs & Annos)
Title 13A. Criminal Code. (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 3. Defenses.
Article 2. Justification and Excuse.
� 13A-3-25. Use of force in defense of premises.


(a) A person in lawful possession or control of premises, as defined in Section 13A-3-20, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon such premises.


(b) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (a) of this section only:

(1) In defense of a person, as provided in Section 13A-3-23; or
(2) When he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson in the first or second degree by the trespasser.

The commentary explains:

Under the original draft, this section did not give a right to use deadly physical force to prevent any felony in or upon the premises, but was limited to life-endangering circumstances, specifically arson in the first or second degree (which includes destruction by explosives), or other situations which fall within the principles of self-defense or defense of another person under � 13A-3-23. Thus, the original proposal did not permit the occupant of a house to kill with impunity an intruder inside a house who is bent upon theft only. Of course, if the situation deteriorates into self-defense, or apprehension of physical harm by a burglar of a dwelling, or of kidnapping, mayhem, robbery, forcible rape or sodomy, the defendant would have been protected.

It is important to note that in 1979 the legislature amended the provisions of � 13A-3-23, use of force in defense of a person, which are incorporated by reference into � 13A-3-25, defense of premises. As amended, � 13A-3-23 permits the use of deadly physical force if a person reasonably believes another is "committing or about to commit burglary in any degree," and there are now three degrees of burglary which have been re-conceptualized. See �� 13A-7-5 through 13A-7-7. So, also, with "robbery in any degree." See Commentary under � 13A-3- 23.

On the other hand, the Criminal Code justifies physical force to thwart criminal trespasses concerning which there were at least eleven statutes in former �� 13-2-100 through 13-2-110, describing different offenses, e.g., entering premises after warning, unauthorized dumping of garbage, re-taking possession of land after legal dispossession, cutting down another's trees.

That's just one state, Alabama. I could go on with my research, but I don't really see the point. The law is pretty much as I described. In fact, Alabama goes further than I described. If someone enters your property you can indeed kill them. Since 1979 you don't even have to be in fear of your life anymore.

On top of all of this, the kinds of relatively clear-cut situations we have been talking about would in many cases be exactly the kind of cases that wouldn't even be prosecuted. Remember that states' attorneys have a great deal of discretion. If Joe upstanding citizen plugs Bill burglar breaking into his home one midnight, the chances that charges will follow are pretty slim.