Your home is your castle

[nemafakei]

Anyone wanting any sort of weapon should ask themselves "would I be happy for the burglar to carry that weapon too?"

If you legalise guns for to use in protecting your home, there will be enouygh guns around by which a potential burglar might defend himself or force you into submission - and unlike the burglar who will have the weapon on his body, you will have to ensure you can find your weapon before he finds you.

On the other hand, you must also question as to where you draw the line. If someone is on your property, does that give you the right to shoot them? Do you have to warn them first? Do they have to be committing an act of theft? Could you shoot a child stealing apples from your orchard? Do you have to be in danger of being physically attacked? Do you have to be in danger of being killed?

And where you draw the line, ask yourself what the moral justification is for that line.

No burglar with a whit of intelligence would reasonably kill someone because he was seen; that would only increase the likelyhood of being caught (clues left due to unplanned action) and the severity of punishment.

[Acriku]

Your right to swing fists ends at my nose. If I'm on your property, my rights apply. If I am posing no immediate danger to harm you or your family, you cannot kill me. If I am running away after stealing your jewels, you cannot kill me. My rights apply.

[thomas]

my method works best

causes immense pain

not lethal

needs no ammo (only gunpowder)

really loud

[GUNWOUNDS]

The best way is to either take his kneecaps out,or in the nuts,and any guy or woman no matter how scrawny , can take a big guy out, if they hit in the right place.

ok fine ... go walk up to one of those 300lb defensive lineman on any one of the NFL football teams who can benchpress 500lbs and go kick his ass.. i really want to see this.

you people saying that

[Acriku]

GUNWOUNDS, even if you think your life is endangered, you cannot violate someone else's rights if they aren't really endangering your life. If they are on your property, they still have the right to life. They can justly sue you if you shoot them in the back (key note: in the back, thus not posing any danger to you), because you violated their rights.

[Andrew]

And that makes today's lesson. If someone is about to shoot you, turn your back on em and if you survive you get $$$. ;)

Get guard dogs, they will let you know if someone is intruding.

[GUNWOUNDS]

GUNWOUNDS, even if you think your life is endangered, you cannot violate someone else's rights if they aren't really endangering your life. If they are on your property, they still have the right to life. They can justly sue you if you shoot them in the back (key note: in the back, thus not posing any danger to you), because you violated their rights.

yes i agree with this .. however  my comments are regarding an "in-house face-to-face life-threatening confrontation"

[Acriku]

Then by all means - shoot the hell out of 'em  ;D

[GUNWOUNDS]

And that makes today's lesson. If someone is about to shoot you, turn your back on em and if you survive you get $$$. ;)

Get guard dogs, they will let you know if someone is intruding.

      :D

[nemafakei]

Do you think it's more likely that criminals will be wielding weapons if they need to get them off the black market in secret and hide them, or if weapons are available legally?

Where firearms are illegal, a burglar is unlikely to have a firearm - I wans't saying the possibility is excluded. But where such weapons are legal, the chances are, this burglar will be armed with a firearm or even an automatic weapon (almost all handguns are illegal here, but some criminals do have them; almost no-one has an automatic weapon).

So if you legalise firearms, almost all burglars will have them. This means that those homeonwers who don't have one are another step disadvantaged, and those who do may well not have one to hand if and when they discover a burglar.

"1.) Punch him?? (hahahah he will break both your arms then your neck)

2.) Stab him?? (haha  ok well maybe but  he will grab your arm and snap it in two)

3.) shoot him ? (ding ding we got a winner !!)"

How about 4) get well out of his way and call the police as soon as you can.

"i dont care about  others rights"

This much is obvious.

[GUNWOUNDS]

People keep speaking of criminal's rights....

[GUNWOUNDS]

So if you legalise firearms, almost all burglars will have them. This means that those homeonwers who don't have one are another step disadvantaged, and those who do may well not have one to hand if and when they discover a burglar.

actually

[Dante]

People keep speaking of criminal's rights....

[Nyarlathotep]

Dust scout, as I said before, once you've knocked down an intruder (and tied him/her up), provide him/her a weapon (at least let them hold it for a brief moment so their finger prints are on it) and you can claim it was self defence. Here in The Netherlands, the police will take your word against that if the intruder :)

[Khan]

The FACT that a burglar can obtain a

[nemafakei]

Hang on, hang on...

From what I gathered, we started with private citizens defending your home against an intruder, and whether you were right to shoot him, and now we end up with verging on the notion that all who oppose this are in favour of a city of weaponless pacifists who have no police force, and are under threat of being dominated by a gun-toting madman with (presumably) vast quantities of ammunition...

No.

I'm talking about a real world, in which there exist police who have arms if they need call upon them. Yes, there will always be those who overstep the law, but these are a minority of criminals. Legalising guns and condoning their use in defence of property is arming the rest of the criminal world, as well as giving rise to the criminal who goes another step further, and carries not a simple weapon, but a more advanced, illegal weapon - unless you're seriously suggesting legalising all conceivable weapons?

Remember also that we're talking about an "in-house face-to-face life-threatening confrontation": While you may be in a city of millions, how many of them will there be in the house, armed and prepared, when an intruder enters? When the intruder enters at some inhuman hour of the morning, armed and prepared to threaten, where will your weapon be? In your hand? Will you even be awake?

An armed criminal in a city of millions armed is still going to get a lot done if the millions of guns are wielded by sleeping owners, or those absent from their weapons.

Only a few criminals will be armed with a gun if guns are illegal. If they are legal, almost EVERY criminal will be so armed, pretty much forcing all homeowners to join in the arms race. Consider also that you're more likely to get shot if you confront a criminal with a like weapon than if you keep out the way, since it is to the criminal's disadvantage to shoot you - but he will if effectively forced into a corner.

The rather crucial issue that you've so far failed entirely to consider is the fact that criminals who wander into people's houses, threaten them with firearms, and take their property tend to get caught (in more developed countries, at least). Those who shoot others are even more likely to get caught. Taking justice into your own hands is taking the rule of law one step away from its rightful position as an official function of society, and moving it closer to a form of mob rule. While I acceptthat you're not advocating mob rule, you can (I hope) see the direction in which you propose to move the due processes of public order.

Note that I have not so far mentioned the issue of 'rights' (a word wholly inadequate, overused, and rarely thought-through).

[Acriku]

Dust Scout, you'd be going to jail if the person is killed while trying to get away (since you shot him in the back) because he didn't pose a threat to you anymore.

[Dante]

And that's another thing that's wrong.

[Acriku]

Why? Where's the justice? By definition, you're killing a man and not out of self-defense. The only way to legally kill somebody, atleast in the U.S., is either in self-defense of yourself or of somebody else.

[Dante]

Who said anything about justice? I'm thinking more revenge and of course a very certain method of making sure they don't come back. Now if they run off your property, then you shouldn't be able to kill them. Not legally anyway.

There is no way to kill legally here... Leastways not one I know about...

[Kiyouta]

I'd only shoot him if he had some of my stuff, else I would just leave him to run. Then I'd just call the police.

[Acriku]

Who said anything about justice? Let me think here..perhaps - the law? ???

[Dante]

They aren't represented here.

And besides, the law can be wrong. If the Hutton report is anything to go by it's about as incorrect as it is possible to be...

[Warskum]

Gunwounds: Size doesnt matters, we have a saying here in holland: "who isnt strong, must be smart",

Like atomic sayed u know ur own house so u have the element of suprise, u can pop up and kick in to his balls, hit him with an sharp, heavy object, this will bring down any human man with no protections there, no matter the size, next thing u can do is beat him up more or tie him or make him lose concience and call the police.

Another bad thing of beeing a big guy is speed, they ussually are slower then my grandma, so i just have to hit him and duck/run and hit him again(i ll aim his balls or his nose, a broken nose hurt a lot and its easy to break it) or run somewere else and get an useful object to hit him with. U play emp and u should now this, example: laser vs mino, now i know that this isnt a game but u have to think of other ppl to, dont just kill them, maybe they have kids and he is steeling for them and if u kill him, his kids wont have a dad.

If the burglar has a gun then its another story, i say shoot the shit out of him then.

[Dante]

dont just kill them, maybe they have kids and he is steeling for them and if u kill him, his kids wont have a dad.

Tough. If someone's on my property illegally then I'm not going to stop and consider his/her family situation or the underlying reasons for him/her being there.

Not because I'm particularly thoughtless, I just think that my needs outweigh theirs. Not because I'm better than them (Who knows?) but because I'm the one defending what is mine.