The right to defend yourself in your home

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Why would anyone using a firearm as self defense use a triggerlock (liberal feel good law) and or use the bedroom as the only place to keep the firearm(s)?

An 8 year old and his brother about a 1/2 mile from here was at their grandparents playing. Found the shell's and shotgun loaded it, playing cops and robbers and blew half his brothers head off. His grandfather committed suicide a few month's later. If he'd have obeyed that 'liberal feel good law' the child would still be alive today and so would the grandfather. So yeah I'm for gun safety. Where do you keep your weapons? A secured gun cabinet? What's the difference between the two? Or are you one of those responsible adults who has them laying around locked and loaded?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

An 8 year old and his brother about a 1/2 mile from here was at their grandparents playing. Found the shell's and shotgun loaded it, playing cops and robbers and blew half his brothers head off. His grandfather committed suicide a few month's later. If he'd have obeyed that 'liberal feel good law' the child would still be alive today and so would the grandfather. So yeah I'm for gun safety. Where do you keep your weapons? A secured gun cabinet? What's the difference between the two? Or are you one of those responsible adults who has them laying around locked and loaded?

Above and beyond that, what if these guns w/o trigger locks make it out on the streets? Trigger locks are a must not only for the above story and many like it, trigger locks prevent more killings and robberies when they get into the hands of the theft that stole them from the home.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Chock

The contentious issue is the use of 'excessive' force if defending yourself.

However, if someone tries to have it away with my DVD collection or anything else for that matter (which I've worked hard to pay for) after having smashed in my back door, then I regard no force as excessive enough in stopping them, because they bloody well asked for anything they got. And if I was on a Jury for a case such as this, I'd recommend giving the homeowner a medal, not a fine or custodial sentence.

The law is indeed 'an ass' a lot of the time.

Chock

I shot a man who was trying to steal my computer. I'm not joking, either.

He broke into my vacation home in the US and tried to take it while I was sleeping. As a bachelor, I knew I wasn't expecting anyone, so I pulled out a Smith&Wesson .34 Special I'd bought just about a month earlier and loaded it with 2 bullets, both hollow point. Went into my physical entertainment room (that holds my game collection and my computers) and saw a guy in a ski-mask standing there with my computer in his hands... so I shot him both times and accidentally killed him when one shot went through his neck. Well, it was cleared up in practically no time (I was in Corpus Christi, Texas at the time) and my computer was safe, even though the bastard dropped it about 2 feet...

Quite true, Chock. Texas rocks.

Heh, reminds me of Family Guy:

JOE: "So I jumped on his back and got him down and accidentally broke his spine."

PETER: "Hehe, looks like you've got a buddy."

JOE: "No, he's dead..."

PETER: ""

[August]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

An 8 year old and his brother about a 1/2 mile from here was at their grandparents playing. Found the shell's and shotgun loaded it, playing cops and robbers and blew half his brothers head off. His grandfather committed suicide a few month's later. If he'd have obeyed that 'liberal feel good law' the child would still be alive today and so would the grandfather. So yeah I'm for gun safety. Where do you keep your weapons? A secured gun cabinet? What's the difference between the two? Or are you one of those responsible adults who has them laying around locked and loaded?

If they'd have kept the 8 year old strapped inside a straight jacket until he was 18 the accident wouldn't have happened either.

There were two big parental failures here. First, the child was not educated to differentiate between a toy and a real firearm and second, the child was left unsupervised in the presence of a firearm for a considerable length of time.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

An 8 year old and his brother about a 1/2 mile from here was at their grandparents playing. Found the shell's and shotgun loaded it, playing cops and robbers and blew half his brothers head off. His grandfather committed suicide a few month's later. If he'd have obeyed that 'liberal feel good law' the child would still be alive today and so would the grandfather. So yeah I'm for gun safety. Where do you keep your weapons? A secured gun cabinet? What's the difference between the two? Or are you one of those responsible adults who has them laying around locked and loaded?

August already stated the 2 main reasons why this event occurred. But I'll rebut as to WHY gun-locks aren't advisable:

1. A gun lock on a gun means I cannot use it when I need it.
2. Gun locks can be defeated by anybody with a dremel and lots of time.

Firearm safety is a great concept:

-Firearms that are used as a PDW are kept on your persons at all times.
-Firearms that aren't used as a PDW are kept in the safe, gun locks (A.K.A. trigger locks) are absolutely worthless. The firearm can still be transported out of the home and into "the streets".

[SUBMAN1]

People still question the right to self defense in this thread? Amazing. Maybe we should put some people here in a room with one of these whacked guys and see if they actually will defend himself against being totured / raped / killed. This thread would be dead shortly after, regardless if they survive, or even if they don't.

What I think this has come down to is trying to justify ones own governmental position. They are trying to say that their governments idea of not protecting ones self is the right thing to do. Sadly, it is not. The right to protect ones self and loved ones is a basic human right that is above all laws.

-S

[Tchocky]

I don't think anyone is questioning that right, the discourse leans towards what is and isn't excessive force.

[Stealth Hunter]

If you enter my home and are stealing from me and have damaged my property and possibly entered with the intentions of injuring me or my kin, I should be allowed to kill you. This case is so damn stupid. It's like a worse image of that case where a burglar fell through a woman's skylight and landed on a kitchen knife AND SUED HER, successfully (might I add), FOR $30,000 IN PERSONAL DAMAGES. Just goes to show how corrupt the law is.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by August

If they'd have kept the 8 year old strapped inside a straight jacket until he was 18 the accident wouldn't have happened either.

There were two big parental failures here. First, the child was not educated to differentiate between a toy and a real firearm and second, the child was left unsupervised in the presence of a firearm for a considerable length of time.

Yeah, right, and back to the real world? Trigger locks serve a purpose.

Edit: Not against home defence but am for common sense.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I don't think anyone is questioning that right, the discourse leans towards what is and isn't excessive force.

You are arguing that basic right - 100% arguing. If someone breaks into my home, I have no idea why he is there (assuming it is a he). He didn't send me a telegram prior to doing it saying that he is just going to take my stuff!!! The only excessive force plausible case you have here is if you shot him another 500 times after he was dead - and maybe this is not excessive if you had a belt fed M-60 doing the job - and it is legal to own an M-60 in the United States, so don't say this is not possible. You can have a mini-gun if you want it and have the $$$ for it - 100% legal.

So i don't buy your argument - it has no weight.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Yeah, right, and back to the real world? Trigger locks serve a purpose.

Edit: Not against home defence but am for common sense.

Yes they do - around children only though who are unaware or undiciplined. No children, no reason to have it.

Properly training a child also can suffice for a trigger lock. We had a rule in my house when I was young - you never go into your parents room for any reason. Period. A loaded gun was the reason. We knew what it was, and we knew never to touch it ever, and guess what? We never did.

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You are arguing that basic right - 100% arguing. If someone breaks into my home, I have no idea why he is there (assuming it is a he). He didn't send me a telegram prior to doing it saying that he is just going to take my stuff!!! The only excessive force plausible case you have here is if you shot him another 500 times after he was dead - and maybe this is not excessive if you had a belt fed M-60 doing the job - and it is legal to own an M-60 in the United States, so don't say this is not possible. You can have a mini-gun if you want it and have the $$$ for it - 100% legal.

So i don't buy your argument - it has no weight.

-S

I'm hardly arguing anything, Subman. I was correcting what I saw as a mischaracterisation, that you made. So there's no argument for you to reject. At least not of mine. I've posted here about five times, haven't gotten past two sentences. Nothing that could convincingly be called an argument.

[sunvalleyslim]

Way to go Stealth Hunter.......Probably helps to be in Texas.........

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I shot a man who was trying to steal my computer. I'm not joking, either.

He broke into my vacation home in the US and tried to take it while I was sleeping. As a bachelor, I knew I wasn't expecting anyone, so I pulled out a Smith&Wesson .34 Special I'd bought just about a month earlier and loaded it with 2 bullets, both hollow point. Went into my physical entertainment room (that holds my game collection and my computers) and saw a guy in a ski-mask standing there with my computer in his hands... so I shot him both times and accidentally killed him when one shot went through his neck. Well, it was cleared up in practically no time (I was in Corpus Christi, Texas at the time) and my computer was safe, even though the bastard dropped it about 2 feet...

Quite true, Chock. Texas rocks.

Heh, reminds me of Family Guy:

JOE: "So I jumped on his back and got him down and accidentally broke his spine."

PETER: "Hehe, looks like you've got a buddy."

JOE: "No, he's dead..."

PETER: ""

Here you would be in prison for that. Maybe i should move to Texas.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I'm hardly arguing anything, Subman. I was correcting what I saw as a mischaracterisation, that you made. So there's no argument for you to reject. At least not of mine. I've posted here about five times, haven't gotten past two sentences. Nothing that could convincingly be called an argument.

I made no such mischaracterization. That is where you are in error, or are you? If you are not arguing against my point, then so be it.

I am probably mixing you up with P-Funk.