Let's try it this way, Gimpy. Rather than allowing the possibility of misidentification or crooked cops, manslaughter suits ... etc by allowing this BS to continue, wouldn't a MUCH better solution be to force police to follow procedures, get warrants ... etc?

That seems to benefit both the civilians and the policemen.

Kaz is correct.

And Gimpy you still can't ignore the fact that this goes against the 4th Amendment.

:rotfl2:

"Halt! Who are you?" And the burglar, if he has a gun, shoots you dead. How about if you know they're the police and they shoot you anyway?
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/0...r_Shooting.htm

Google "Homeowner shoots intruder" and see how many times someone with a gun has indeed saved the day, despite your derision of that possibility. Also you'll see a lot of mistakes being made, which is bad, but for the most part the good people involved did indeed do the right thing, and in many cases saved lives to boot. You're the one who is being paranoid, scared to death that any of the several million gun owners in this country is going to shoot you. While it could happen, the chance of someone of evil intent, with or without a gun, doing you serious harm, is much greater.

[QUOTE=gimpy117;1666489]what Im saying is, If a robber breaks into my home, I'm not going to start a gunfight over my things that could possibly get me or my family killed. Armed robbers aren't thinking clearly sure, but what do you think their first reaction is going to be when you put a gun in their face? Items can be replaced, lives can't.



Here again you post something that clearly shows that you are very fearful of firearms.I find it very hard to believe that any person who owned a gun or any weapon even a baseball bat is going to actually have an armed intruder in their home(one is clearly not a cop) and they are going go with your line of thinking.This is just nonsense no right thinking person capable o defend them selves by any means is going to think such a thing you have stated to themselves when a person displaying clear intent to use said arm if needed and perhaps (you cant know this but I know you seem to think that you will Gimpy just like you think you will now when police have entered your home unannounced) is going to kill you and your family.

Furthermore you keep saying gunfight gun battle when in most self defense cases the person had retreated to a back corner of their house and fired only as the last option.


You still choose to ignore the entire 4th Amendment point of this entire thread and and continue to make obvious anti-gun statements you keep turning this into a chance to express an anti-gun agenda.I again find it very hard to believe that you in fact own firearms because your statements about them in this thread make it clear that you are fearful of guns on such a level that I dont see how you could be at ease having one in your home or in your presence.Your statements are the exact same thing that every person I know that dislikes/fears guns and in most cases has an anti-gun agenda and believes the propaganda that anti-gun groups promote.

Do you even have an opinion on the OP topic of this thread the 4th Amendment?.....I doubt it because you love and obey your government without question it seems if they said jump you'd say "how high?" instead of "why".

If you where truly concerned about everyone safety you'd see the obvious foolishness of this court ruling which puts the police and innocent people at greater risk but you ignore that you just read some comments about guns and saw the chance to show off just how afraid of guns and other gun owners that you are or how much you believe the anti-gun propaganda and don't even think about posting about "NRA" and "republican" pro gun propaganda(when you post several times about the other sides propaganda) there are many gun owners that are not in the NRA and that are not republicans and that don't believe either sides propaganda.

The obvious fact of this is that there are those who wish to slowly one step at a time take away most of our rights as Americans that should alarm you but you are so tricked by their propaganda you don't even realize it.

I sort of agree to that.
When you wake up at middle of the night and find out that someone has broken your door and is in your bedroom is one thing.
Being allowed by law to shoot at any one who is in your back yard without asking questions is something different.
Its a right to mindless shooting.

As far as I am aware it is illegal to simply shot at someone just for being on your property like say your yard.I can recall some guy saying that he could do this some years back in tech school,simply shot at someone on his property just for being there no questions asked everyone else including a woman who had a concealed carry license(I did not have one at the time) was trying to tell him that he was wrong.And I agree that just blowing away someone with no verification first is mindless shooting I think everyone else would agree with that.

I don't know about every state but you cant just shoot someone in Florida just for being on your land and nothing else they have to be clearly endangering you and you are supposed to only use deadly force when all other options fail.

Or the the unarmed kid who was there to steal your T.V is now dead, and you go to prison. My point is, it's not self defense unless you know you are in danger...and without finding out who is intruding in your home you cannot reasonably say it was self defense. Also, trespassing or burglary does not give you the right to just shoot somebody.

Also, yes i understand the whole "4th amendment" but heres also the thing: the police breaking onto your home is Illegal, and they should be punished for them breaking the law, but you are STILL not allowed to shoot them.


http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/m...8/IMG_0715.jpg

theres a picture of my K-98. I own guns stealhead, so I guess you're going to have the beleive it.

A decent point, but you still have the problem that demanding anything of any unidentified person in the dark is a stupid idea. I like Utah's law: If he's in your home without your permission, it's his fault, and no you don't go to prison. And here in Utah, if he's in your home without your permission then you don't have to say it was self-defense, reasonable or otherwise. He shouldn't be there, and it's his problem.

well I didn't make the law, I know it's crummy, but the law is put in place to make sure people aren't being killed unless there isn't an alternative to doing so. Whats the saying "shoot first and ask questions later?" obviously that negative saying came from somewhere

What is so hard about holding the person who ACTUALLY CAUSES the problem accountable?

Gimpy, it's simple: don't want to get shot invading a home? Don't invade the damned home.

You can give sob stories about the poor teenager who gets shot trying to take a TV all you want, but personally I'm more concerned with the teenager who's growing up without a father - a father who's life was cut short because he had to stop to figure out how dangerous the intruder actually is.

At the end of the day, the moron who's life was cut short over a TV should've simply chosen to forgo that which he was unwilling to pay for.

And I sit here and smirk. I've probably lived in a much more dangerous place in the world (large city in mid-90s Russia) than most of you, and never did I or my family feel the urge to own a gun. For about the same cost, instead - steel bars on windows, reinforced steel door in addition to the wooden one, three complex locks, and a trusty axe next to the bed. Problem solved, noone can possibly sneak up on you, and noone dies - and if they have to, you'll be the one striking from around the corner with a weapon no less deadly in close quarters. No need to cave in to paranoia either, no training required, noone will take you to court over improper use of a door. I mean SURE someone could get around that if they were really determined and well-equipped, but against a determined and well-equipped killer I'm afraid a gun won't save you either. Nor will it save you from the government. And if your place isn't a lavish castle, at a certain point noone's going to go through all that crap just for your TV.

I don't consider gun nuts "nuts" at all by the way, but the home defense argument to me always falls flat. It's such an unreliable, expensive, fault-ridden method with a lot of risks that I really don't understand it. Trust me, it's cultural psychology - and again, by no means do I suggest it to be a "pathology", but it's a very strange obsession/quirk that unsurprisingly isn't shared by most people in the world.

:agree:Apart from the "expensive" bit, firearms are not expensive.

To make a house like that in the US would cost thousands, but most houses here are secure. I fear more crime going out in public.

No, guns can't save you from government, but sure can protect you. Just look at nations that have lil or no weapons, when government goes nuts people can't defend themselves. Our government doesn't care if we kill each other each other as long as they get elected and make their friends rich.

Care to run off a few examples which would show the slightest truth in that?

So let me get this straight.

To be able to defend oneself in your world one has to be fit enough to effectively wield an axe and be able to ambush their intruder. Not to mention get their landlord to install window bars (fire codes?), fancy locks and steel security doors.

Talk about an unreliable, expensive and fault ridden methods... :roll:

What happens if there are two (or more) intruders? Are you going to be able to pull that axe from the first intruders head quick enough to ambush the second one?

Personally I'm racking a .12ga 3 inch magnum buckshot round in the chamber of my bayoneted Mossberg 590. The sound that makes is a lot more effective than telling some drug crazed home invader that you have an axe and you know how to use it.