The right to defend yourself in your home

[STEED]

Once again this story hits the headlines again.

Homeowner arrested after the burglar he confronted fell 30ft and died

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770

Granted we will not know the outcome of this case until November any how on the radio phone in today people rung in telling there story's and most of them got a period in prison from one month to a year or more and most were fined. If a person or persons enters your property illegally they have crosses the line from citizen to criminal, what are you to do when you face them? Have tea and biscuits and help yourself to my stuff, of course not. Your thinking about yourself or your wife and children this person could be a house breaker to a killer so you are going to put up a fight and stop them, and yet in this country you face being punished for defending your home and family.


The Government say, we have the right to defend ourselves and yet in law there is no hard facts laid out, it's all a grey area. So when the heck is this grey area going to be resolved? This year? Next year? Ten years from now? or most likely never as there are too many bleeding heart liberals working hand in glove with the EU laws.

[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.

:D Chock

[swifty]

Move to Texas where it is legal to shoot any one trespassing on your property all you need is a "trespassing" sign or a fence. It doesn't mater if it's excessive or not.

God Bless Texas:rock:

[bradclark1]

Move to Texas where it is legal to shoot any one trespassing on your property all you need is a "trespassing" sign or a fence. It doesn't mater if it's excessive or not.

God Bless Texas:rock:
They have to be inside the house though. Just on the property isn't enough.

Yeah Steed it's the same over here. Really pathetic when you aren't supposed to protect your own home.

Edit: This is what recently happened in my state; http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/24/home.invasion.ap/index.html

[Hakahura]

One less burglar in the world, I don't see a problem.

Give the guy a medal.

[STEED]

If anyone broke in to my home one thing is for sure they are going out in a wooden box.

[Konovalov]

Great. :down: I am expected to put up the white flag, say take what you want, keep my mouth shut and let some scummy crook terrorize my family in the process. :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Great. :down: I am expected to put up the white flag, say take what you want, keep my mouth shut and let some scummy crook terrorize my family in the process. :nope:

Pretty much - but you fogot the part where you tell your would be intruder to 'Stop - give me a minute while I call the cops. Then you can proceed with your breaking and entering and stealing and killing.'

-S

[bigboywooly]

No problem
Beat the cr@p out of the intruder then dump the body a few streets away

Whats he gonna say ?
I was burgling **** and got beat up ?

[SUBMAN1]

No problem
Beat the cr@p out of the intruder then dump the body a few streets away

Whats he gonna say ?
I was burgling **** and got beat up ?

Worse - he is going to get a lawyer and sue you for everything you're worth. Its cheaper and better for society to just shoot him.

[swifty]

Move to Texas where it is legal to shoot any one trespassing on your property all you need is a "trespassing" sign or a fence. It doesn't mater if it's excessive or not.

God Bless Texas:rock:
They have to be inside the house though. Just on the property isn't enough.

Yeah Steed it's the same over here. Really pathetic when you aren't supposed to protect your own home.

Edit: This is what recently happened in my state; http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/24/home.invasion.ap/index.html

In most US states you are right. In order to use deadly force you have to be in fear of your life or the have someone inside your home. But in Texas the law allows one to use deadly force to protect property. It's origins come from the wild west in regards to horse rustling. Because of Texas' size and remoteness if one was to steal/kill the horse it would present risk of death.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


One law that i wish was still on the books was if a husband came home and found his wife cheating he was legally allowed to kill both. Women did not have this right.

[STEED]

No problem
Beat the cr@p out of the intruder then dump the body a few streets away

Whats he gonna say ?
I was burgling **** and got beat up ?

Don't forget Wooly the law will back the scumbag to the hilt, your going down as well, so go all the way and rid the world of one more scumbag.

[Tchocky]

I'm scanning my room, trying to find something that's worth killing over.

.....not really.

There's self-defence, and then there's wooden-box talk.

[Yahoshua]

This has become commonplace in the U.S. now. The law refuses to prosecute the criminal or lets them off with only a slap on the hand while clamping down on the ability of citizens to defend life, limb, and family from violent criminals. We are fast becoming a police state.

http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=77627DBB-0E3E-406A-94EB-D34A3785EE7C&gsa=true

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/gambling_with_our_lives.html

[Tchocky]

Police State? Maybe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1231089,00.html)

I'm trying to reconcile defense of property with the idea of burglary resulting in death.

[waste gate]

I'm trying to reconcile defense of property with the idea of burglary resulting in death.

I guess it all depends upon which death is most legitimate, that of the home owner, or that of the burglar.

Here is an example:
(CBS/AP) Two men described by authorities as career criminals were arraigned Tuesday in the home invasion and arson that took the lives of three members of a Cheshire family.

A bail commissioner said Hayes and Komisarjevky each have records that include more than 20 prior burglaries. Both had been out of prison on parole.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/24/national/main3092098.shtml

[CCIP]

Right, on this one I have to be a bit skeptical Tchocky - I find the idea that burglary would neccesarily be non-violent a little naive. The burglars themselves probably don't expect you to allow anything to be taken just like that, even if you'd seem cooperative. Chances are, if you're present, there will be a strong desire on their part to get rid of you - at least incapacitate.

I personally knew two people who were attacked in or near their dwellings when I lived in Russia - one was stabbed, the other was hit on the head with a large metal object. Both spent lengthy stays in hospitals, and given the nature of the attacks, those responsible probably weren't much concerned for their victims' survival. (In both cases, by the way, the goods stolen were hardly of any real value).

On the other hand, I should note that this article is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say that one doesn't really need to own a gun to confront an invader and, if things get bad, have him on a one-way trip to the morgue - but I won't pull this little argument further ;)

[Yahoshua]

Police State? Maybe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1231089,00.html)

I'm trying to reconcile defense of property with the idea of burglary resulting in death.

Burglars eventually become murderers if they think they can get away with it. And there's no guarantee that a burglar may have intentions excluding or including anything more than mere burglary. Therefore I go with Murphys' Law in this case and will kill the burglar first before the burglar has a chance to kill me.

[fatty]

Burglars eventually become murderers if they think they can get away with it. And there's no guarantee that a burglar may have intentions excluding or including anything more than mere burglary.

If the former were true, wouldn't the violent crime and property crime levels have some correlation with each other? At the moment it seems like they don't - in 2005 the level of property crimes in the United States was ten times higher than the level of violent crime. If we had a statistic of property/violent crimes vs. property/non-violent crimes that would be better, but the BoJS page is dreadful. However from this I think it's safe to infer that an enormous majority of property crimes do not turn violent, else the property/violent crime levels would be closer.

So while the horribly brutal home invasions that make the six o'clock news are good TV, thankfully they remain unusual. And in the unfortunate state of affairs where some must resort to stealing to keep their families afloat and some just don't know better through mental illness or what have you, I can never condone the intentional use of deadly force against a human being simply for entering your home. If that human being displays an interest in harming a man or his loved ones, then obviously no law should detain him in their defence. Short of that, it's just stuff. You can help out the economy by buying more.

[kiwi_2005]

Once again this story hits the headlines again.

Homeowner arrested after the burglar he confronted fell 30ft and died

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770
Granted we will not know the outcome of this case until November any how on the radio phone in today people rung in telling there story's and most of them got a period in prison from one month to a year or more and most were fined. If a person or persons enters your property illegally they have crosses the line from citizen to criminal, what are you to do when you face them? Have tea and biscuits and help yourself to my stuff, of course not. Your thinking about yourself or your wife and children this person could be a house breaker to a killer so you are going to put up a fight and stop them, and yet in this country you face being punished for defending your home and family.


The Government say, we have the right to defend ourselves and yet in law there is no hard facts laid out, it's all a grey area. So when the heck is this grey area going to be resolved? This year? Next year? Ten years from now? or most likely never as there are too many bleeding heart liberals working hand in glove with the EU laws.

We have the same law policy here, but last yr a break through in the justice system, or maybe the judge just knew it was the right thing to do. Guy enters a gun shop with a machette threatening to kill everyone, the gun shop owner pulls out a revolver and shoots him, police charge him for using a firearm in a public place some bullshat charge. He was defending himself and who knows what the machette guy would of done. Anyway the gunshop owner got let off, case dismissed by the judge. Thats a first time thats happened.

[waste gate]

I can never condone the intentional use of deadly force against a human being simply for entering your home. If that human being displays an interest in harming a man or his loved ones, then obviously no law should detain him in their defence. Short of that, it's just stuff. You can help out the economy by buying more.

How long does one take to make the decision? Things happen very quickly within a home and the difference between life and death can be fractions of seconds. I will always make the assumtion that any person within my home without my invitation is there to do me and my family harm, and will act appropriately.

It is unfortunate that your philosophy can make you a victim and a statistic which furthers my opinion. Good luck to you and yours.

[P_Funk]

I can never condone the intentional use of deadly force against a human being simply for entering your home. If that human being displays an interest in harming a man or his loved ones, then obviously no law should detain him in their defence. Short of that, it's just stuff. You can help out the economy by buying more.
How long does one take to make the decision? Things happen very quickly within a home and the difference between life and death can be fractions of seconds. I will always make the assumtion that any person within my home without my invitation is there to do me and my family harm, and will act appropriately.

It is unfortunate that your philosophy can make you a victim and a statistic which furthers my opinion. Good luck to you and yours. If you wish to blur all the lines in those crutial moments of decision then we'd might as well do away with 1st degree, 2nd dregree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, and just say anything taht means death is murder.

The fact is that if you genuinely believe that a man is about to kill you then you can defend yourself. IN your own home if a man is there to steal usually if you interrupt him he runs. The assertion that all burglers are murders in the making is one without base.

Whats more the defense of ones life is considered justification for killing of another man. However if I kill a man simply for entering my home and taking my things, prior to him showing signs of intent to harm me, then I am killing him for theft and not out of self defense. So philosophically I can say that no material possesions can be considered more valuable than a human life, even that of a criminal. To seek to murder a man outside of a direct threat is not self defense. If you can run then you should. For instance if you see a man in your living room taking things but he has a shotgun and you can either run to your room to get your gun or run out the back door and get the cops then you should get the cops. If you can't however avoid harm's way or feel able to interfere with him without threat to your life then you have that right. But to choose voluntarily the path that leads to death when you can avoid it is just poor decision making.

I'm so gonna get flamed for that.

[Konovalov]

I can never condone the intentional use of deadly force against a human being simply for entering your home. If that human being displays an interest in harming a man or his loved ones, then obviously no law should detain him in their defence. Short of that, it's just stuff. You can help out the economy by buying more.
How long does one take to make the decision? Things happen very quickly within a home and the difference between life and death can be fractions of seconds. I will always make the assumtion that any person within my home without my invitation is there to do me and my family harm, and will act appropriately.

It is unfortunate that your philosophy can make you a victim and a statistic which furthers my opinion. Good luck to you and yours. If you wish to blur all the lines in those crutial moments of decision then we'd might as well do away with 1st degree, 2nd dregree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, and just say anything taht means death is murder.

The fact is that if you genuinely believe that a man is about to kill you then you can defend yourself. IN your own home if a man is there to steal usually if you interrupt him he runs. The assertion that all burglers are murders in the making is one without base.

Whats more the defense of ones life is considered justification for killing of another man. However if I kill a man simply for entering my home and taking my things, prior to him showing signs of intent to harm me, then I am killing him for theft and not out of self defense. So philosophically I can say that no material possesions can be considered more valuable than a human life, even that of a criminal. To seek to murder a man outside of a direct threat is not self defense. If you can run then you should. For instance if you see a man in your living room taking things but he has a shotgun and you can either run to your room to get your gun or run out the back door and get the cops then you should get the cops. If you can't however avoid harm's way or feel able to interfere with him without threat to your life then you have that right. But to choose voluntarily the path that leads to death when you can avoid it is just poor decision making.

I'm so gonna get flamed for that.

Excellent analysis P_Funk. :yep:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The fact is that if you genuinely believe that a man is about to kill you then you can defend yourself. IN your own home if a man is there to steal usually if you interrupt him he runs. The assertion that all burglers are murders in the making is one without base.
If you neutralize him straight off, you keep the initiative. If you don't, you give him a chance to seize the initiative. It is your life. Want to take the chance?

Whats more the defense of ones life is considered justification for killing of another man.
When you say that, you have agreed to two things:
1) The value of a human life is not infinite.
2) Some humans (like yourself) are more valuable than others (like criminals who infringe on your right to life).

However if I kill a man simply for entering my home and taking my things, prior to him showing signs of intent to harm me, then I am killing him for theft and not out of self defense. So philosophically I can say that no material possesions can be considered more valuable than a human life, even that of a criminal.
If I choose to challenge this assumption, how would you defend it? When you kill in "self-defense", you actually assert that your life is of greater value than the Criminal.

If your life is of lesser or equal value, you can't make a valid decision to use deadly force against the Criminal. Presumably, the only reason to justify that your life is of greater value is that the criminal depressed the value of his life by being a criminal.

But if that value is depressable, justify the idea that the Criminal cannot have depressed his value to below that of a "material possession."

Suppose you see Criminal preparing to rape a Victim (that you don't know). For the sake of argument, assume that you know for sure that Rapist'd just leave Victim alone after the raping instead of killing Victim, and Rapist has no STDs to transmit. Also assume that you don't think you can safely get Rapist off Victim without deadly force. The police are about 1 hour away. Will you choose deadly force or not?

If you chose that you would use deadly force, you've degraded the value of the criminal well past the ordinary "Human Life" range. After all, I've already established that there is no threat to human life unless you intervene. The damage to Victim will primarily be Psychological. In other words, you've just depressed the Criminal's life value below that of presumably severe but unpredictable Psychological Damage. And that to someone you don't even know. Yet somehow "not intervening" does not seem to be the answer, no?

But if Psychological Damage is enough justification to kill a rapist, then I may be justified in killing a burglar just for taking my stuff. Obviously not if he takes my box of tissue paper - I won't even feel like going to the trouble of calling the police after him. But if he makes off with my family heirloom or my wedding ring, that might cause me great psychological damage. So, justify why I can't shoot him.

[bradclark1]

I'm trying to reconcile defense of property with the idea of burglary resulting in death.
Unless the burglar sent a resume or letter saying he's non-violent he's in very serious trouble, otherwise he's just in serious trouble. You don't know what his intent is.

[Nightmare]

For me the issue is as simple as that the police are not going to be there to protect my family nor are they legally obligated to do so. Police are there to deal with crime after it’s been committed and try to apprehend those that are responsible. It’s of little use to those that have been murdered in a home invasion if the police ever apprehend those that are responsible.

If you are woken up out of deep sleep by someone entering your home at 3am, how do you know their intentions? You have no idea that they are there to simply steal your belongings. You also have no idea what the invader is capable of or what they are willing to do.

Last month my in-laws had their vacation home broken into the night before they went over to use it. They took everything of value and trashed the house. All the furniture was destroyed, all dishes broken, all appliance destroyed, every single wall in the house was damaged (kicked it), and all doors and frames in the house were shattered. Even the police were floored at the level of rage in the vandalism.

They have not apprehended those that are responsible, and have admitted they probably never will unless they get caught doing it again somewhere else. The police do suspect that the criminals in this case were more than likely high on meth at the time.

You want to know what scared the crap out of my wife? The police told her parents that it was a good thing they had decided to not go over a night early as they would have been victims of at least assault or in the worst case both of them could have be killed.

[Letum]

Here is a hypothetical:

Lets say you have 20 burglars robbing 20 houses (one each).
10 are violent and 10 only want to steal your subsim almanac

Method 1: Kill all burglars

We will assume the house owner has a 50% chance of killing violent burglars and a 100% chance of killing non-violent burglars. (violent burglars have a 50% chance of killing the house owner).

5 dead people that deserved it to some extent
15 dead people that died unnecessarily
Total unnecessary killings: 15
Total deaths: 20

Method 2: Kill burglars that are violent

We will assume the house owner has a 50% chance of killing violent burglars (violent burglars have a 50% chance of killing the house owner).

5 dead people that deserved it to some extent
5 dead people that died unnecessarily
Total unnecessary killings: 5
Total deaths: 10

Method 3: Run Away!

We will assume the house owner has a 50% chance of running away (violent burglars have a 50% chance of killing the house owner).

5 dead people that died unnecessarily
Total unnecessary killings: 5
Total deaths: 5

Obviously this is just a hypothetical!

[SUBMAN1]

...Obviously this is just a hypothetical!
ANd only hypothetical since this is not how things work.

100% of all burglars are violent in reality. Simply breaking and entering has made them already accept the fact that violence is a possibility and highly likely.

A hypothetical reality - Upon seeing the house owner, a sizing up comes into play - can they subdue the house owner, if so 50% of house owners get tied up, possibly beaten to death or shot. The other 50%, the burglar will likely run due to the possible fact of personal injury, or the possibility that the cops are on the way. This is again hypothetical, but a bit closer to what actually would happen.

100% of the time, the buglar should also have assesed the possibility of death as the consequence to breaking and entering in the first place, so don't think for a minute that we should spare them that possibility. Everything they are doing at that point is premeditated.

Last bit - 0% of buglars are not deserving of being put down.

-S

[STEED]

Letum, most of these swine come tooled up.

The problem we got here in the UK is our laws are just plain wet and they know it.

I remember a classic one from some years ago, a burglar was chased off and climbed the home owners wall which resulted in the burglar cutting his hands badly because the owner had a layer of sharp stones on top of his wall. Both were fined and the home owner came of worst.

[donut]

In New Mexico,you will be made a convected felon,& spend a year in jail for pointing a loaded firearm at an intruder at your door,and telling him to go home. Even though he has previously assaulted you.
Bill Richardson wants to be president? hoping he spends his wad trying. A Mexican for president,:rotfl: Good campain button idea.
Hillary next worst IMHO.

[P_Funk]

The fact is that if you genuinely believe that a man is about to kill you then you can defend yourself. IN your own home if a man is there to steal usually if you interrupt him he runs. The assertion that all burglers are murders in the making is one without base.
If you neutralize him straight off, you keep the initiative. If you don't, you give him a chance to seize the initiative. It is your life. Want to take the chance? Why even become involved is the point. Kill him if you must but why even enter into that situation if there is a non violent alternative? If you have the initiative as you say then you can choose the course. Why face a man and give him the chance to harm you? You don't face off with a fire in your home so why a burgler?


Whats more the defense of ones life is considered justification for killing of another man.
When you say that, you have agreed to two things:
1) The value of a human life is not infinite.
2) Some humans (like yourself) are more valuable than others (like criminals who infringe on your right to life).

However if I kill a man simply for entering my home and taking my things, prior to him showing signs of intent to harm me, then I am killing him for theft and not out of self defense. So philosophically I can say that no material possesions can be considered more valuable than a human life, even that of a criminal.
If I choose to challenge this assumption, how would you defend it? When you kill in "self-defense", you actually assert that your life is of greater value than the Criminal.

If your life is of lesser or equal value, you can't make a valid decision to use deadly force against the Criminal. Presumably, the only reason to justify that your life is of greater value is that the criminal depressed the value of his life by being a criminal.

But if that value is depressable, justify the idea that the Criminal cannot have depressed his value to below that of a "material possession."

Suppose you see Criminal preparing to rape a Victim (that you don't know). For the sake of argument, assume that you know for sure that Rapist'd just leave Victim alone after the raping instead of killing Victim, and Rapist has no STDs to transmit. Also assume that you don't think you can safely get Rapist off Victim without deadly force. The police are about 1 hour away. Will you choose deadly force or not?

If you chose that you would use deadly force, you've degraded the value of the criminal well past the ordinary "Human Life" range. After all, I've already established that there is no threat to human life unless you intervene. The damage to Victim will primarily be Psychological. In other words, you've just depressed the Criminal's life value below that of presumably severe but unpredictable Psychological Damage. And that to someone you don't even know. Yet somehow "not intervening" does not seem to be the answer, no?

But if Psychological Damage is enough justification to kill a rapist, then I may be justified in killing a burglar just for taking my stuff. Obviously not if he takes my box of tissue paper - I won't even feel like going to the trouble of calling the police after him. But if he makes off with my family heirloom or my wedding ring, that might cause me great psychological damage. So, justify why I can't shoot him. You make a kind of distinction that I cannot for the life of me contemplate. You assert that the value of human life is negotiable based solely on action. Such ideas are in direct competition with the philosophical foundation of our democratic societies. Whatever the character of a man you cannot declare that life is more valuable in one case than another.

I challange first of all your assertion that self defense is admitting that ones own life is more valuable than that which you took. This is ridiculous logic. What self defense asserts is that your life is threatened and that as the guardian of your own existance you took action to prevent its extinction. This says nothing for the life which you might have ended in the process only that it was an obstacle to your continued survival. Such logic is slanted towards the argument that criminals deserve a lesser kind of humanity than the rest of us and that is a kind of philosophy that makes me wish many people that do care would join the rest in being apathetic.:nope:

Secondly comparing a burgler to a rapist is not a fair argument simply because I asserted that self defense is only necessary when you are forced into a situation where you face grave bodily harm. So that means that you should sacrifice your feeble possession in favour of the prudent course. Rape however is a different matter. For one it is bodily harm, and that is the goal of the attack. Secondly it is already forced upon you or the person whom you might come accross. The nuances of circumstance that exist in burglary are absent in the case of rape. This example you brought forth is moot. If I were to come accross a rapist raping a woman I would first get him off her and then either chase him off or incapacitate him, in that order. But from the outset I wouldn't say to myself "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what just to be safe".

[P_Funk]

Last bit - 0% of buglars are not deserving of being put down.
Very good. Another capital crime. All that will do is encourage burglers to murder the witnesses.:lol:

[waste gate]

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domocile to avoid defending onesself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"

[Puster Bill]

Last bit - 0% of buglars are not deserving of being put down. Very good. Another capital crime. All that will do is encourage burglers to murder the witnesses.:lol:

Perhaps, for some very small percentage of burglars.

In the US, at least, most burglars take pains to avoid occupied houses. I think the percentage of burglaries involving an occupied dwelling in the US is about 12 or 13%. THere was even a survey of violent criminals done (in prison), where the majority agreed that a smart criminal would try to determine if a house is occupied before breaking in.

Why bother, though? People often carry very liquid assets like cash and jewelry on their person, so why avoid them?

It's pretty simple, really. In the US, there is a small, but significant risk of being shot and killed if you commit a burglary on an occupied home.

That risk is essentially zero in the UK. The UK also has a much higher percentage of burglaries where the dwelling is occupied.

This suggests that criminals in general, and burglars specifically, are rational actors: If they perceive that there might be a significant risk involved in an activity, in general they will avoid it. Most criminals are impulsive, so possible punishments that are months or years away really mean nothing to them: They are as remote in their minds as Pluto is to ours.

But the idea of being shot by an intended victim is quite different: It's very real, and close, to a criminal. That risk is not something a lawyer can get you out of, nor can good behavior. It is something that is an immediate risk. Criminals generally want to keep living, just like the rest of us. Therefore, they pay attention to the risk of being killed.

Now, if we were to publicize every single self-defense use of a firearm in the US, where the criminal gets killed, the same way we publicize school shootings and such, violent crime would immediately drop. Why? Because you are increasing the perception that confrontational crime is a risky business in the mind of the criminal. It doesn't matter that the actual risk to the criminal is the same, or even lower: It's about the perception of risk. I would expect that violent economic crimes like burglary and robbery would be replaced by less confrontational crimes, so the overall crime rate wouldn't drop, just the violent crime rate.

[donut]

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domicile to avoid defending oneself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" From fat dumb,& happy pie in the sky liberals,& DAs that couldn't make it in private practice. After we fight another WW the pendulum of justice will swing the other way. Continue on guys, it's a bad subject for me.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The fact is that if you genuinely believe that a man is about to kill you then you can defend yourself. IN your own home if a man is there to steal usually if you interrupt him he runs. The assertion that all burglers are murders in the making is one without base.
If you neutralize him straight off, you keep the initiative. If you don't, you give him a chance to seize the initiative. It is your life. Want to take the chance? Why even become involved is the point. Kill him if you must but why even enter into that situation if there is a non violent alternative? If you have the initiative as you say then you can choose the course. Why face a man and give him the chance to harm you? You don't face off with a fire in your home so why a burgler?
In reality, even if your original plan upon hearing the burglar is to run out of the house to call the cops and avoid confrontation, if you have a gun or knive nearby you'd probably pick it up first just in case you get backed into a corner. Now, you come into (accidental?) contact with the burglar and as I've assumed you have the initiative, you have the drop on him. If you seize it and shoot him, you retain the initiative even if you miss due to the well-known suppressive effects of bullets. Every second you do anything other than shooting him gives him the chance to detect you and take counteraction. Since action is always faster than reaction, the more so in the dark, once he makes his move you are in real danger of losing the initiative and being at the mercy of the burglar.
I challange first of all your assertion that self defense is admitting that ones own life is more valuable than that which you took. This is ridiculous logic. What self defense asserts is that your life is threatened and that as the guardian of your own existance you took action to prevent its extinction.
That's correct, but take it a little further. If we assume the criminal's life is equal in value to yours, you will actually be unjustified in deciding to guard your own existence. Consider this mathematically:
Assume Human Life = 100
Do not self-defend: 100*P, 0<P<1, so 100*P<100
P being probability that criminal will kill you. It can never be 1 in your estimate because you cannot read the criminal's mind.
Self-Defend: 100*P1+100*P2, P1=1, 0<P2<1, so 100*P1+100*P2>100
P1=1 because you've already decided to use deadly force for self-defence. P2 represents the probability that the criminal gets off a counterfire and kills you.
As you can see, if you assume a criminal's life as equal to yours, the harm potential in choosing self-defence will always be higher in principle, thus lethal self-defence is immoral. (For the moment, I've ignored the possibility that you can shoot the other guy and fail to kill him, because the possibility exists for both sides.)
Even if he's actively beating you up or raping you, it still won't be justified, because:
Assume Human Life = 100, so 0<Bodily Harm<100, and Bodily Harm + Killing = 100 because Human Life is only worth 100
Do not self defend= 50+50*P (P being the probability that the criminal will kill you in the end)
Self-defend=50+100+50*P2 (P2 being the probability that the criminal will escalate to a deadly method because you chose to self-defend with lethal force, or even non-lethal force)
I've used only deadly methods, but this can be extended to less deadly methods of self defence. At every level, self-defence will involve the chance of getting both sides hurt, while non-self defence will only lead to yourself being hurt at worst. Thus, the end result may be that any kind of self-defence is immoral.
The only way I see self-defence could be valid is to somehow decrease the value of the criminal's life.
For example, you may calculate:
Do not self defend: 100*0.9=90
Self Defend: 10*1+100*0.1=20
So Self Defend wins.
There is some assumption in the Probabilities, of course, but at least it'd be valid.
If I were to come accross a rapist raping a woman I would first get him off her and then either chase him off or incapacitate him, in that order. But from the outset I wouldn't say to myself "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what just to be safe".
What if you've already assessed, based on the rapist's size and weight for example, that you cannot "chase him off" or "incapacitate him" with any degree of confidence except with deadly force (your concealed firearm)? Stop evading the scenario.

[NefariousKoel]

I'm scanning my room, trying to find something that's worth killing over.

.....not really.

There's self-defence, and then there's wooden-box talk.
I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/EvilAshOrly.jpg

Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

[P_Funk]

That's correct, but take it a little further. If we assume the criminal's life is equal in value to yours, you will actually be unjustified in deciding to guard your own existence. What is with you guys and your need to qualify the value of a human life? The fact is simply that all human life is equally valuable in the broad definition but to each of us certain lives matter more, those being our own and those we love and care for. The natural instinct to defend a life from extinction plays on these personal values of life but even in self defense where we are willing to end another life to save a preferred one we are doing it in a situation where there isn't an alternative. This doesn't debase the life that was ended in the process on value scale, but it does challenge the character of the man or his decisions. I don't believe in capital punishment so I cannot acknowledge that the actions of a man forfeits his life. As such the spark of existance that breathes in every person is seperate from the character which we might impeach by encarcerating or kiling that person. We can't unjustifiably end another life without just cause, and that cause is only the defense of innocent life.

Now this of course doesn't take into account the irrational urges of the emotional person to seek revenge and to punish someone for their evil deeds but there is a reason this is an irrational response. It is motivated by emotion, an emotion which clouds the rational philosophical human being that is above such uncontrolled svagery. This is why the jury of our peers is 12 strangers, and why they are often sequestered.

Consider this mathematically:
Assume Human Life = 100
Do not self-defend: 100*P, 0<P<1, so 100*P<100
P being probability that criminal will kill you. It can never be 1 in your estimate because you cannot read the criminal's mind.
Self-Defend: 100*P1+100*P2, P1=1, 0<P2<1, so 100*P1+100*P2>100
P1=1 because you've already decided to use deadly force for self-defence. P2 represents the probability that the criminal gets off a counterfire and kills you.
As you can see, if you assume a criminal's life as equal to yours, the harm potential in choosing self-defence will always be higher in principle, thus lethal self-defence is immoral. (For the moment, I've ignored the possibility that you can shoot the other guy and fail to kill him, because the possibility exists for both sides.)
Even if he's actively beating you up or raping you, it still won't be justified, because:
Assume Human Life = 100, so 0<Bodily Harm<100, and Bodily Harm + Killing = 100 because Human Life is only worth 100
Do not self defend= 50+50*P (P being the probability that the criminal will kill you in the end)
Self-defend=50+100+50*P2 (P2 being the probability that the criminal will escalate to a deadly method because you chose to self-defend with lethal force, or even non-lethal force)
I've used only deadly methods, but this can be extended to less deadly methods of self defence. At every level, self-defence will involve the chance of getting both sides hurt, while non-self defence will only lead to yourself being hurt at worst. Thus, the end result may be that any kind of self-defence is immoral.
The only way I see self-defence could be valid is to somehow decrease the value of the criminal's life.
For example, you may calculate:
Do not self defend: 100*0.9=90
Self Defend: 10*1+100*0.1=20
So Self Defend wins.
There is some assumption in the Probabilities, of course, but at least it'd be valid. Math, yuck. And if you can't find a mathematical solution to justifying self defense then maybe math isn't quite the correct vessel for emparting the intangible emotional value of life that we carry with us.

If I were to come accross a rapist raping a woman I would first get him off her and then either chase him off or incapacitate him, in that order. But from the outset I wouldn't say to myself "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what just to be safe". What if you've already assessed, based on the rapist's size and weight for example, that you cannot "chase him off" or "incapacitate him" with any degree of confidence except with deadly force (your concealed firearm)? Stop evading the scenario. What if what if what if... you evade the unspecific reality of circumstance and keep demanding that I acknowledge every specific scenario that involves me popping someone. I'm not saying don't kill the guy if you can't help it but I'm challenging the concept that the use of deadly force is demanded on all occasions. Police routinely arrest suspects for crimes such as these without even firing a gun. And yet again I challenge why we're even talking about rape here. Its a totally different scenario anyway, one in which the act of bodily harm is already occurring which significantly alters your demanded discretion.

[Konovalov]

I'm scanning my room, trying to find something that's worth killing over.

.....not really.

There's self-defence, and then there's wooden-box talk.
I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/EvilAshOrly.jpg

Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

How about countering the persons arguments rather than attacking members with lines such as "pansy" and "Yay limp-wrist!" like grown up men. :down:

[Letum]

I'm scanning my room, trying to find something that's worth killing over.

.....not really.

There's self-defence, and then there's wooden-box talk.
I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:

[pic]

Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

Oh come now! :roll:

You resorting to idiotic pictures, personal insults and questioning his masculinity?
Thats not how to act in a forum or anywhere else. :nope:

[Onkel Neal]

Here is a hypothetical:

Lets say you have 20 burglars robbing 20 houses (one each).
10 are violent and 10 only want to steal your subsim almanac



http://www.breadonthewaters.com/add/0888_nuclear_explosion_large_clipart.jpg

[Heibges]

Isn't that a bit like biting off your nose to spite your face there, Onkel? :D

[Onkel Neal]

Like Jack Burton always says, "It's all in the reflexes." :)

[Tchocky]

I'm scanning my room, trying to find something that's worth killing over.

.....not really.

There's self-defence, and then there's wooden-box talk.
I've been saving this for such a pansy-like response:

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/EvilAshOrly.jpg

Yay limp-wrist! Remind me to not have you covering my back. It's okay, the rest of us will protect you. Thanks, honey. Nice to know I'm safe.

[micky1up]

i have no doubt this man is innocent but i think there is a very fine line between defence and attack, if a man enters my home bent on theft then hes only taking material items that can be replaced and its probably not worth the danger of attacking him. If he enters with the intent of harm then he gets what he deserves , im no coward ive spent 20 years in november serving the uk in the submarine service but my and my families lives depend on making the correct decisson although i agree the decission is a hard one to make.

[Sailor Steve]

Like Jack Burton always says, "It's all in the reflexes." :)
"Who?"
"Jack Burton! ME!"

While I always take the "self defence is good" and "having a gun is better than any other alternative" stance, I will agree that being willing to kill is not the same as killing. If I confront an intruder and he makes the wise choice to run, I'll let him go, even though here in Utah I'm not legally bound to do so.

This doesn't mean I'll stop and consider the situation for long, but if he sees me and my weapon and my intent, and runs, or surrenders, or faints, I'll let the cops handle it. Killing isn't something anyone should enjoy.

[NefariousKoel]

How about countering the persons arguments rather than attacking members with lines such as "pansy" and "Yay limp-wrist!" like grown up men. :down:

In case you missed it: I was directly questioning his manhood. Ya see... I haven't the false luxury of the authorities being around to do a d@mn thing. What ya gonna do then? Scream like a little girl and beg them to take your albums? :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

[quote=Konovalov]
What ya gonna do then? Scream like a little girl and beg them to take your albums? :rotfl:
:oops: :yep: :oops:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

What is with you guys and your need to qualify the value of a human life? The fact is simply that all human life is equally valuable in the broad definition but to each of us certain lives matter more, those being our own and those we love and care for.
Ah, I see, so your solution is, instead of depressing the value of the criminal in your mind, to raise the value of your own life and that of those close to you.
Not only is this nepostic idea even more subjective than depressing the value of the criminal (for which you can at least try and say they are damaging the good of society or whatever), but it doesn't even solve the problem.
Once the two sides are assumed to be unequal, one side is by definition worth only a part of the other. Which opens up the possibility that a lethal self-defence (or pre-emptive strike) is justifiable for things worth only part of your life, ranging from serious bodily injury to loss of a treasured possession.
Example:
Criminal = 100
Your Life (raised by your "emotions" and nepotism) = 1000
Your family heirloom = 20% of your life (example) because of your emotional attachment to it.
1000*20%=200>100 so your family heirloom is more important than criminal's life. Ergo, OK to shoot criminal making off with it, of course under the assumption there is no other way to seriously retrieve heirloom.

I know you hate math, but as a utilitarian I find it useful to use simple math to quantify these things.

[donut]

Where does "Walk softly,and carry a big stick" enter into this thread.I am all for avoiding confrontation,if it is forced upon you,you must respond.because force of any human animal kind involves emotion,& instinctive survival of oneself.

[P_Funk]

What is with you guys and your need to qualify the value of a human life? The fact is simply that all human life is equally valuable in the broad definition but to each of us certain lives matter more, those being our own and those we love and care for. Ah, I see, so your solution is, instead of depressing the value of the criminal in your mind, to raise the value of your own life and that of those close to you. Yes that is how I see it. I am not just being untilitarian and sober in my philosophy but I'm taking into account the emotional aspect of it; that irrational thing we do when we naturally value the lives of those close to you more than that of someone who is a stranger or of that person who threatens you. Those feelings contradict the philosophical basis of our society yet we must reconcile them. So you accept the natural instincts which posses us but we give them rational domain through justifiable cause. But I won't say that one life is more or less valuable in a general way. To me in that moment mine or my family's is more valuable to me but the court certainly doesn't see it that way. That is the beauty of our society. And I think to enter math into any discussion of the value of life is just misleading. People don't think like that, in the moment or in the aftermath. I'm all for utilitarianism but not in this case.

The distinction is significant. Debasing is different from elevating. To value your own life in one context is about you and not him. To say he isn't as valuable is to measure the value of a life that is not ours which is nothing that any of us can do. It is a difficult assertion to articulate but I think that you can understand it. Most people will just scoff at it but I stand by it.

[sunvalleyslim]

Gentlemen,
Having actually taken anothers life in defense of life and property, I can say that when the time comes you will do in what you believe. What matters is what the criminals intent is or was before, and what transpires during. All of which is his choice. Not yours because you did not start this event. You merely react. You will react according to your training or beliefs. Obviously if confronted and he flees, the danger is over. However if he doesn't flee and becomes confrontational, Then I hope by God that you have the courage to confront evil. Because this is when he thinks he's going to control the situation, and I want you to use all means necessary to make sure that doesn't happen. Once resistance by him begins and belief that injury or death may happen to others, please to not hesitate to use the necessary force to over come this situation. If it comes to the use of deadly force, there has always been a saying here....."I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6"..............SVS

[waste gate]

Other than donut no one has answered my question. Please.

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domocile to avoid defending onesself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"

[P_Funk]

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domocile to avoid defending onesself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"
Once again your words place your question in such a way that most people here who don't agree with you would not be able to answer it. Your idea of the "disdain" for self defense is a characterization of our opinions based on your own. It is not like asking where economic collapse comes from, you're asking us to tell you why we're wrong.

So I could go on and on about my position but instead I'll give it to you this way.

Where does the disdain for non-violent solutions come from?

[lorcan3]

If someone comes charging in my house, or I should say try, 'cause I have steel doors front and back and another door wth a vinyl window. If he DID make it through, let's see he'd have to go through two border collies, an M1 Garand with pigsticker, a very long Moisin-Nagant with a 2 foot long pigsticker, a very, very, very sharp double edged two-handed scimitar, and a very sharp basketed claymore. Not to mention a 7.62mm Broomhandle Mauser and my wife's single shot .22 caliber bolt action lady's rifle that belonged to her Great-Aunt Marie that her aunt used for shootin' rabbits. It maybe 150 years old, but it'll still shoot the butt off a fly at a 100 yards.
I have a 15 year old daughter and my wife. I'm 100% disabled but if anyone, ANYONE threatens my family or my home, I'll rip out their guts and use 'em for garters. I don't give a rat's fart what happens to me, my concern is my family. 1st priority is God, 2nd priority is family and 3rd priority is home in that order.:arrgh!:

[swifty]

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domocile to avoid defending onesself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"
Once again your words place your question in such a way that most people here who don't agree with you would not be able to answer it. Your idea of the "disdain" for self defense is a characterization of our opinions based on your own. It is not like asking where economic collapse comes from, you're asking us to tell you why we're wrong.

So I could go on and on about my position but instead I'll give it to you this way.

Where does the disdain for non-violent solutions come from?

I think most everyone here who is pro self-defense will try to seek out a nonconfrontational means.
ie:
- If you return home and suspect you home has been broken into call the police and have them clear it before entering.
- If your at home and you can safely secure yourself and others call the police and have them secure the house.
The main idea is preservation of life.

However things to keep in mind. Professional burglars do not break into an average person's home when the dwelling is occupied. It is just to big of a risk. So the people you are going to run into at two in the moring are going to be drug addicts, rapeists, murders, ect. Youre not going to reason with a addict high on meth or some one intent on causing you harm. If I cant secure my famly and contact athoritys (ie I left my cell phone down stairs in the kitchen) Im going to put a round in them like svs said "I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6".

I don't under stand this argument about how all lives are equal. I agree all men are created equal but if someone breaks into my home or committed a crime for that reason they have mad a choice to start forfeiting their rights. It just may be that they are forfeiting their right to live. They put themselves in that situation I'm just reacting to it.

I'm also in favor of a more broader blanket and think one should have the right to protect property as well. Not all property can be replaced. One can't just replace Fido and to many he is part of the family. Also in some cases loosing property can mean loosing one means of income and not every one has insurance. If a mechanic as his tools stolen it's usually thousands of dollars to replace. Data is anoter and not everyone keeps backups.

It comes down to self preservation and protecting others. The other person is the one that made the choice to be there I'm only reacting to protect myself, famly and others.

[bradclark1]

If I cant secure my famly and contact athoritys (ie I left my cell phone down stairs in the kitchen) Im going to put a round in them like svs said "I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6".
In the case of home invasion you are defenceless unless you carry a weapon in the house. I think that would make company a little nervous. You won't have time to go to the bedroom unlock the trigger, load it then come back. Unless of course you have CCTV set up.

[waste gate]

If I cant secure my famly and contact athoritys (ie I left my cell phone down stairs in the kitchen) Im going to put a round in them like svs said "I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6".
In the case of home invasion you are defenceless unless you carry a weapon in the house. I think that would make company a little nervous. You won't have time to go to the bedroom unlock the trigger, load it then come back. Unless of course you have CCTV set up.

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)?

[AVGWarhawk]

Best defense for home defense....two ankle bitters (dogs). I have two. One is 7 pounds of ferocious bark (poodle) the other is 60 pounds of wirehair pointing griffon who takes no crap from anyone. Therefore, when said intruder attempts to open door/window Jaws will be there awaiting the first leg coming over the ledge. If said intruder hurts/shoots the ankle bitter, the poodle is back up and certainly will trip the intruder as he enters the house. By then, the house will be up with all the noise and I will have Brown Betty (baseball bat) ready to swing away. After said intruder has his read removed, I'll drag his soon to be rotting body to the front porch, put the bat away and call the police. Once they arrive I'd advise them he fell while running out of my house and cracked his head on the door step. I'm guessing that is how that big concaved portion of his head got that way. :roll:

Sure some will say dogs don't always work and this is true, but for the most part, I'm betting dogs deter more than one would think. Fight fire with fire I always say!

[tycho102]

It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

I've started to question the rationality of this specific position. I used to question the pragmatism, now I question the actual logic.

[bradclark1]

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' :roll: 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]

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' :roll: 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]

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.

:D 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.:up:

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: ":o"

[August]

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' :roll: 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]

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' :roll: 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.........:up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

[Happy Times]

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.

:D 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.:up:

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: ":o"

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

[SUBMAN1]

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.

[Onkel Neal]

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.

I agree. I have two pistols, and both are locked, the revolver has a trigger lock and the .40 semi-auto in its case. I just couldn't live with myself if one of my kids or their friends got hurt in an accident. They have been taught, told, and warned not to screw with the guns unless I am in attendance, but I've heard sometimes children don't always do what they are told. I'm not taking any chances with my kids.

If I need to handgun to protect myself, the combination lock will only slow me down for about 6 seconds. That's cool with me, it gives the home invader a sporting chance. I'm a really good shot (ask the Subsim guys who came to the 2006 Texas Sub Club meeting) ;)

One thing people should keep in mind before opening fire in their home if they think they have a home invader.... when you wake up and you're groggy and disoriented, don't shoot your wife or kids by mistake...


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.

Don't blame you one bit. Where did the other shot hit?

[Reaves]

Very strict gun laws over here.

Mainly only criminals carry them now. Our police force still use revolvers while the crook is likely to have a nice 9mm pistol.

[AVGWarhawk]

When it comes to Texas and hand guns....the state is in a league of it's own. From what I understand it is perfectly legal to carry one. At any rate and a true story:

Buddy of mine in NY had a home invader. He clocked him on the head while the intruder was in the house. The intruder was hit hard enough to kill him. He called the police who arrived as requested. Before the investigators arrived, the police told him to put the bat away. The police dragged the intruder to the front porch. They then advise him to fill out the report with the investigators stating the intruder ran out the front door, tripped and hit his head thus killing himself. Case closed. True story!!!

[bradclark1]

When it comes to Texas and hand guns....the state is in a league of it's own. From what I understand it is perfectly legal to carry one. At any rate and a true story:

When I lived in Austin (72-73)you could carry a weapon as long as it is visible as is not concealed. You could not take it into a store etc. Things might have changed since then.

[SUBMAN1]

When it comes to Texas and hand guns....the state is in a league of it's own. From what I understand it is perfectly legal to carry one.....


Not really. You can pretty much carry one in almost every state as long as you have a permit, or they have open carry.

In Washington for instance, you can open carry any time you like.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

They have been taught, told, and warned not to screw with the guns unless I am in attendance, but I've heard sometimes children don't always do what they are told.
What would I do without the practical advice I come across on game forums! :roll:

[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.
Real world? Expecting an adult to supervise children when there are unsecured firearms and ammo laying about? I have nothing against trigger locks and other child proofing methods but nothing substitutes for proper adult supervision.

Personally if I had kids in the house and I deemed it necessary to have real quick access to a self defense weapon I would go with one of those rapid access combination gun safes like this one: http://www.gunvault.com/

[JALU3]

Very strict gun laws over here.

Mainly only criminals carry them now. Our police force still use revolvers while the crook is likely to have a nice 9mm pistol.

My biggest question is how do gun laws stop criminals from aquiring and/or possessing firearms? For is that not the biggest reason for gun laws to exist?

[donut]

You all have heard this quote before,["out law guns then only out laws will have guns"] and this makes nonsense??? I sure don't think so.http://www.tsra.com/img/tsralogo.jpg (http://tsra.com/)pardon the spam,Cowboys

[Stealth Hunter]

Don't blame you one bit. Where did the other shot hit?

Other one hit him in the left arm, just above the elbow. I was aiming for his heart, but age wears on you, it seems.:rotfl:

[Happy Times]

Don't blame you one bit. Where did the other shot hit?

Other one hit him in the left arm, just above the elbow. I was aiming for his heart, but age wears on you, it seems.:rotfl:

So you were trying to kill him? Before you said you killed him by accident. ;)

[Yahoshua]

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.
Real world? Expecting an adult to supervise children when there are unsecured firearms and ammo laying about? I have nothing against trigger locks and other child proofing methods but nothing substitutes for proper adult supervision.

Personally if I had kids in the house and I deemed it necessary to have real quick access to a self defense weapon I would go with one of those rapid access combination gun safes like this one: http://www.gunvault.com/


If you're going to bother getting a safe, DON'T get something that is easily transportable!!

Get one of these:

http://www.libertysafe.com/safe_Franklin.lasso

As for keeping your PDW in the safe until you need it, you may as well not have it because that's about as much good as it's going to be to you.

In Law Enforcement there is a procedure called the "21 Foot Rule". The proper application of this rule relies on the officer being called to make a quickdraw from a snapped holster and make two unsighted shots to center mass of the attacker and getting out of the way before the attacker reaches you.

Here's an excerpt from the Force Science Research Center study:

The 21-Foot Rule was formulated by timing subjects beginning their headlong run from a dead stop on a flat surface offering good traction and officers standing stationary on the same plane, sidearm holstered and snapped in. The FSRC has extensively measured action and reaction times under these same conditions. Among other things, the Center has documented the time it takes officers to make 20 different actions that are common in deadly force encounters. Here are some of the relevant findings that the FSRC applied in reevaluating the 21-Foot Rule:

Once he perceives a signal to do so, the AVERAGE officer requires 1.5 seconds to draw from a snapped Level II holster and fire one unsighted round at center mass. Add 1/4 of a second for firing a second round, and another 1/10 of a second for obtaining a flash sight picture for the average officer.

The fastest officer tested required 1.31 seconds to draw from a Level II holster and get off his first unsighted round.The slowest officer tested required 2.25 seconds.

For the average officer to draw and fire an unsighted round from a snapped Level III holster, which is becoming increasingly popular in LE because of its extra security features, takes 1.7 seconds.

Meanwhile, the AVERAGE suspect with an edged weapon raised in the traditional "ice-pick" position can go from a dead stop to level, unobstructed surface offering good traction in 1.5-1.7 seconds.

The "fastest, most skillful, most powerful" subject FSRC tested "easily" covered that distance in 1.27 seconds. Intense rage, high agitation and/or the influence of stimulants may even shorten that time, Lewinski observes.

Even the slowest subject "lumbered" through this distance in just 2.5 seconds.

Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. "Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance,"


I will be very impressed if you're fast enough to open a safe, load the magazine, rack the slide, and discharge two rounds into your attacker in under a second and a half.

The best solution for you, if you have a PDW, is to have the sidearm on you at ALL times. All other guns stay in the safe.

[Letum]

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jbistlin/headlines/028.jpg

[waste gate]

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jbistlin/headlines/028.jpg


Should have found the parents of the harasser before he was born. Murder is legal at that point.

[Letum]

Much better to just send them to prison.....
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jbistlin/headlines/010.jpg

If you must defend your home, use a axe:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jbistlin/headlines/018.jpg

(ok, I will stop posting these now :P )

[Onkel Neal]

I will be very impressed if you're fast enough to open a safe, load the magazine, rack the slide, and discharge two rounds into your attacker in under a second and a half.

The best solution for you, if you have a PDW, is to have the sidearm on you at ALL times. All other guns stay in the safe.

Well, if I thought that level of home defence was necessary, I would install steel doors and burglar bars on the house :)

[Onkel Neal]

Don't blame you one bit. Where did the other shot hit?

Other one hit him in the left arm, just above the elbow. I was aiming for his heart, but age wears on you, it seems.:rotfl:

So you were trying to kill him? Before you said you killed him by accident. ;)

He accidently hit him in the neck, he was aiming for the chest :cool:

Other one hit him in the left arm, just above the elbow. I was aiming for his heart, but age wears on you, it seems.

Hmm... that's quite a spread there.... More practice is needed.;)

[Yahoshua]

Home invasions are becoming more violent, and unfortunately, more frequent.

Rural homes are starting to see an uprise of the trend because those domiciles are usually isolated, and for the most part, almost always have a firearm in the home.

Steel doors are nice (albeit a bit overrated), but burglar bars just attract more attention from criminals. Honeycomb windows are the way to go, that alone will turn away most criminals who are looking for a quick fix. The more determined ones....well, lets' hope it doesn't come to that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Rural homes are starting to see an uprise of the trend because those domiciles are usually isolated, and for the most part, almost always have a firearm in the home.


We have to go once again a bit deeper. Rural areas are getting to be just as drug infested as the cities. Blackburg VA, Westminster MD are two known areas to have a bad crack problem. Heck, a cocaine drug ring made up of Amish in Lancaster PA was rounded up a few years ago. With that out there, isolated homes in the rural areas are perfect for the crack addict that lives in the neighborhood. Break in and steal so you can get a few bucks at the pawn shop. A few bucks can keep a crack addict high for a few days. Cheap stuff to buy. At any rate, drugs are a hard driver and will make a person do anything to get them. Certainly breaking and entering is top of the list to find goods to sell for drugs.

[bradclark1]

The best solution for you, if you have a PDW, is to have the sidearm on you at ALL times. All other guns stay in the safe.
If you live in a neighborhood where you feel you have to walk around your house armed at all times I would suggest you move. I would anyway.

[SUBMAN1]

The best solution for you, if you have a PDW, is to have the sidearm on you at ALL times. All other guns stay in the safe. If you live in a neighborhood where you feel you have to walk around your house armed at all times I would suggest you move. I would anyway.

Agreed! Of course I say this on the rare night a loaded .45 w/ 9 rounds of Federal HydraShock 230 gr. sits next to me. Just polished it a bit. Kimber Stainless Pro Carry. Expensive, but nice gun. Better than the Pro Carry II and I don't plan to sell it so don't ask me! :p

-S

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jbistlin/headlines/028.jpg

Haven't you figured out yet that this is a numbers game? It's a percentage of the population. What scares me is that this number of whackos keeps growing as population increases. Population increase is still a topic in America where population decrease is common in Europe. So I have to deal with more whackos than you, so I think I need to go buy another backup gun.

-S

[Yahoshua]

The best solution for you, if you have a PDW, is to have the sidearm on you at ALL times. All other guns stay in the safe.
If you live in a neighborhood where you feel you have to walk around your house armed at all times I would suggest you move. I would anyway.

I'd still carry my PDW on me anyway, but I can't wait to get out of where I am now. 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks.

[lorcan3]

A little advice to Warhawk-Keep the body in the house! If you do not or the bastard wakes up and crawls out the front door, he'll sue you for attempted murder. W e know he's a frickin' thief but if he's not in the house, you'll be strapped for attempted murder and if uou kill him and leave his body outside, that's 1st degree murder with either the death penalty or life without parole. So leave him in the house and put his bod in the bathtub if he's bleedin' all over your nice new carpet that you just had installed yesterday and THEN call the cops!:arrgh!: Let's keelhaul the scurvy dog! AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGG!

[lorcan3]

why don't you guys just load 'em up with .45 cal. hollow points? Go in leeetle and remove his/her chest? Then tell them "Sorry, we don't take organ donations here."
Good way to get rid of the PCP addict population and send the bodies to med hospitals to train our up and coming doctors. They need some corpses to dissect. When they're done, thy just cremate the bodies.:arrgh!: AAARRRGGGG HANG 'EM UP FROM THE YARDARM AAARRRRGGGGG!

[lorcan3]

Unfortunately for the past 3 months we've seen reports on the 10 o'clock news that sheriff deputies have found very large fields filled with different varieties of marijuana plants. I beleive the last count was over 85 million dollars in plants. They grow these fields in the woods where the trees are over 80' feet high and they think that the choppers can't see them but the police also use horses to carry the deputies into the woods where they find these fields. I live in Star, Idaho and our population is growing like everyone is a bunch of rabbits and it's mating season. The gangs are moving in too and drive by shootings in Nampa are common place. We have a hell of a lot of Mexicans here and I would say at least 90% of them work in the fields and/or landscaping. Education up here is a crock and I have a 15 year old to prove that this "no child left behind" plan of Bush's is about as useful as a piece of tp to wipe my butt with. Someone sent me an email called cheap tomatoes. In it they talked about the free schools they have in Calif. for immigrant kids. Check this out: FREE education, FREE meals, FREE healthcare, FREE insurance all this comes out of your paycheck and taxes. The kid have no respect for the teachers calling them "putas or pinche putas".No women likes to be called a whore, not in any language. If you want to read this email, let me know. My email is lorcan3andvicky@aol.com:arrgh!:

[waste gate]

Yet another story about a person, through a pacifist upbringing, is a victim.
Where are the police when these things happen? The old story don't resist we (the police) will be there to clean your blood off the walls.
http://www.9news.com/news/top-article.aspx?storyid=76547

This is why if someone breaks into your home you shoot them period no question. This I'm not willing to kill someone who is after property argument is f*cked. Because you don't know that they are just after property. Assume the worst, it is your and yours life at stake.