Well, I agree ryo, robbery does mainly take place while you're away from the home. Which is why I do have those other security measures in place. They'll deter most of them hopefully.
While I did not buy my firearm specifically for home defense, it is there if I ever do need it.
That's like having a handy dandy keychain that can also stop lighting strikes. I wouldn't buy it specifically to stop the lightening strikes, but it sure is comfy knowing I have it if I'm out in a thunderstorm.
Well ok, that was a pathetic example, lol.
What I'm trying to say is that I didn't buy a firearm specifically to defend my home- but it is there though, so if the other security features fail, I have yet another possibility. It's no garuntee, but neither are the others.
When did people who own firearms start leaving their doors open at night with signs that say "Come on in, I dare you"?
There's nothing that says you can't have a security system, a dog, a maneating scarecrow, and a firearm. I consider it a last line of defense and when it comes into play it is absolutely necessary.
I guess a better analogy would come from the computing world: when you want to defend your network from hackers, you don't just put up a firewall (front door) and consider yourself perfectly safe. You also use passwords, file permissions, time restrictions, patches, NATing, etc. You trust in the layers more than the individual components, because that's being properly prudent. A home invader might be able to pick a lock, or defeat a security panel, or jimmy windows, or defeat a dog, or stop a bullet - doing all of the above though, is somewhat less likely.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My opinion on this topic has been posted so often in this forum that it feels like mental masturbation to repeat it once more. I'll thus make it short so I don't leave any sticky spots:
The basic argument behind the idea of violent home defense, be it in the form of firearms, physical violence, or anything of the likes goes, summarized, along the lines of this: - Police forces are not capable of preventing the escalation of an already existing situation due to various reasons ranging from incompetence to simple distance. - In case of a home invasion with violent intention, one should thus have every right at preventing the crime oneself. - Violent intent might play a role in but a statistically insignificant portion of the actual amount of home invasions, but seeing the possibly gruesome outcome of such a crime, it is adviseable and understandeable to assume the worst. Sometimes, a violent case in the immediate vicinity of the speaker is cited to emphasize that what is being discussed here is not out of the world, but a very real threat.
Now, let me ask you two questions: Do you fear being hit by lightning? Do you take clear and constant precautions specifically geared at this possibility?
If you have answered both of these questions with "no", you can not continue using the argumentation I outlined above, because, cite as many 'guns have saved my life' stories as you wish, the fact remains that such a situation is about as likely to happen to you or your close ones as a - comparably lethal - lightning strike. Yet, you advocate the use of a firearm, which almost inevitably produces an amount of accidental violence by far bigger than the eventuality you are trying to defend yourself against in the first place. Additional to this, there is no guarantee that a firearm will safe you in a violent situation - one could even argue that it'll be more likely to escalate an otherwise relatively harmless situation into a violent situation using a gun than it is to actually resolve one -, and there are, as Ryo pointed out without of being argumentatively refuted so far, by far better and less risky precautions.
Concluding, while the gun / the otherwise violent resolution of the issue might appeal as the instinctively better choice, there appears to be no rational grounds on which to support this feeling.
I'm living twenty meters from a place where an escaped rapist molested and murdered a woman. Yet, my mother, my sister and myself barely bother to close the backdoor at night, knowing that nothing unreplaceable is in any real danger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nem: The constitution of the USA states that you have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say we have "the right to life, libert, and pursuit of hapiness...as long as it's rational. By the way, you should be satisfied with having this right 99% of the time".
If someone decided that they needed a suit of rubber armor to prevent getting hit by lightning, he has the right to do so.
Similarly, if someone decides that they need a firearm to defend his property, then by the second amendment he is allowed to have one.
I really don't see how your point about the fact that no one takes "extreme measures" to prevent getting hit by lightning invalidates the arguments for the possession of firearms. First of all, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people who are struck by lightning each year, while there are tens of thousands of victims of crimes involving some sort of physical force or another (check the FBI site, they have statistics for several past years). I consider that a situation in which I would have to defend myself will arise far more often than me getting struck by lightning. You know why? Because you can easily avoid any chance of being struck by lightning at all. Unfortunately, there is no such way to guarantee that you won't be robbed or raped or assaulted.
As for your argument about not actually resolving a situation or turning it into a violent one, the aggressor party should have known better. I do believe death or serious bodily injury does resolve a situation in a very final sense.
As was pointed out earlier, accidental injuries and death from firearms mainly result from poor education or a user who is not trained to use it. I'm sure there are many people who cut their fingers while using a knife or scissors, or **** themselves with needles while sewing. By your logic, these items shouldn't be used either.
And to end this post, yay for "make my day", concealed weapons laws, and this: <img src='http://www.funehumor.com/images/fun/shotgun.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Feb 6 2004, 05:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 6 2004, 05:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> result from poor education or a user who is not trained to use it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The difference being??
Anyways... I agree. Its my home. End of story. People have the right to defend their property and themselves. I will protect my property, my family and myself to my best ability. If that includes owning a firearm in my own home then that is my right.
I don't know about anyone else here, but if someone were to break into my home, regardless if their intent is to just steal or to inflict physical harm, I would feel threatened. Should I ask the intruder if he plans to just take valuables or if he has any intentions of harming either my family or myself? If you say yes, then I'll happily go along with that... Just after I shoot first. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If I do not have the right to defend my own home, then this freedom we so cherish is nonexistent.
Somehow I'm starting to feel that yanks don't get guns because they have the need to protect their families. Maybe it's just an excuse for everyone, including yourself, to have a weapon. I know, it's a real powertrip to hold a gun and maybe it's just something that makes you feel secure. Gives you the feeling that you are in charge of things. Kinda like when you were a kid, you had a teddybear that was supposed to scare away the monsters under your bed. Surely it didn't do that, but the teddy was there bringing comfort.
Gun however, is rather expensive teddybear. It costs lives, innocent ones too(jealous husband shoots wife in anger, kid finds dads gun etc).
My final take: you have the right to protect yourself, but don't exaggerate. Extremes are bad, mmkay? (Extremes: not locking your doors at all or using lethal force against a kid trying to steal some cigarettes/booze)
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Feb 6 2004, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Feb 6 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know about anyone else here, but if someone were to break into my home, regardless if their intent is to just steal or to inflict physical harm, I would feel threatened. Should I ask the intruder if he plans to just take valuables or if he has any intentions of harming either my family or myself? If you say yes, then I'll happily go along with that... Just after I shoot first. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is something I don't understand. When someone breaks in to your house, WHY THE HELL do you have to go look what's going on? If you truely don't want to get in to a conflict and don't care that much about posession, you stay in your room, make noise and call the cops. What most of the gun owners seem to do is that they charge right in to the same room with the burglar so that he doesn't even have time to get out and starts blasting. After that the owner just says "I felt really threatend there" Like in that farmer case, why couldn't he wait for the cops or for the guy to break a window or so? But nooooo, he had to go outside and shoot instead of staying inside.
ffs 1) Stay in your room 2) Call the cops 3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house 4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
BadKarmaThe Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7Join Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8260Members
edited February 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 6 2004, 06:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 6 2004, 06:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Somehow I'm starting to feel that yanks don't get guns because they have the need to protect their families. Maybe it's just an excuse for everyone, including yourself, to have a weapon. I know, it's a real powertrip to hold a gun and maybe it's just something that makes you feel secure. Gives you the feeling that you are in charge of things. Kinda like when you were a kid, you had a teddybear that was supposed to scare away the monsters under your bed. Surely it didn't do that, but the teddy was there bringing comfort.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats a nice stereotype there. First, im Canadian. Second I hunt. Third, target shooting is fun. You play videogames for fun, i play videogames and shoot targets for fun. Its like burncycle said, if i didnt hunt or target shoot, i would not own a gun. Plenty of other ways to defend myself.
<!--QuoteBegin-BadKarma+Feb 6 2004, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BadKarma @ Feb 6 2004, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats a nice stereotype there. First, im Canadian. Second I hunt. Third, target shooting is fun. You play videogames for fun, i play videogames and shoot targets for fun. Its like burncycle said, if i didnt hunt or target shoot, i would not own a gun. Plenty of other ways to defend myself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What makes you think I directed my post to you? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sure there are people who have guns for other purposes, but I'm talking about people who get them only for self-defence. I feel the gun just makes you feel really secure, even though you know in the back of your head it really doesn't help that much.
Edit: When I say 'you', I don't mean YOU, BadKarma, but as in you in generalized form. English ownzors my head <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 6 2004, 06:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 6 2004, 06:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-othell+Feb 6 2004, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Feb 6 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know about anyone else here, but if someone were to break into my home, regardless if their intent is to just steal or to inflict physical harm, I would feel threatened. Should I ask the intruder if he plans to just take valuables or if he has any intentions of harming either my family or myself? If you say yes, then I'll happily go along with that... Just after I shoot first. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is something I don't understand. When someone breaks in to your house, WHY THE HELL do you have to go look what's going on? If you truely don't want to get in to a conflict and don't care that much about posession, you stay in your room, make noise and call the cops. What most of the gun owners seem to do is that they charge right in to the same room with the burglar so that he doesn't even have time to get out and starts blasting. After that the owner just says "I felt really threatend there" Like in that farmer case, why couldn't he wait for the cops or for the guy to break a window or so? But nooooo, he had to go outside and shoot instead of staying inside.
ffs 1) Stay in your room 2) Call the cops 3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house 4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So wait I'm supposed to stay in my room, in my house, when someone forces entry and let that person take whichever of my possesion they desire because I want to avoid conflict?
Let me break it down to you, there are very, very few career criminals in the world, the people who break into peoples' homes are desperate, they usually need a fix, or are just not in a right state of mind, they aren't likely to paruse your home looking for the most valuable items, take them and leave without incident, and even if they did the chances that next time they needed cash they would know exactly where to go.
If every homeowner had this mentality there would be nothing to stop a burgler from just breaking into homes without discretion. Fear of being arrested, he's most likely a repeat offender, unable to find employment (See my views on the ridiculous criminal system in the US) and not likely to have many regrets about taking what you worked hard to earn.
I understand it's the instinct of most liberals to not blame the person for his crimes, a lot of people have an idiological belief that people are inherintly good, and that their enviorment drives them to commit crimes. Even so it is not the obligation of the citizen to be the one take this into consideration, if the goverment were willing to make sweeping changes to socio-economic changes then yes we wouldn't have to worry about defending ourselves in our own homes. But that is a discussion for another thread, and if you want feel free to make it and I'll discuss it there.
BadKarmaThe Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7Join Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8260Members
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Feb 6 2004, 07:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Feb 6 2004, 07:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Y'all should watch the movie Bowling For Columbine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, with about a kilo of salt.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
OT: Glock 17C. Get at least 4 17 rounders and a 33 rounder. /OT
I agree with dread. (Oh I feel so dirty...) Hearing a sound, picking up a weapon, of any sort, not just firearms, and then calling the police and waiting, is one thing. If he comes in and you're forced to remove him from the gene pool, you really did not have any other choice. Going in to check it out, and winds up someone getting killed, provided you survived the encounter, you MIGHT hold up in court......but you might not. Are you REALLY willing to risk the next couple decades of your life over some #%)@*# if you don't absolutely have to? (Granted, again, situation governs all. If you hear a window break in the next room, and there's 3 rooms between you and your wife/child/etc., then IMO you do whatever is needed to get between anyone coming inside, and your loved ones.)
It's called firing a defensive round, if it hits the front of the person and the shot is taken from less than 15 feet it's perfectly legal, at least in California. That being said most rational people would run at the sight of a gun in the hand of the person's house they broke into, and most rational people wouldn't shoot someone unless they absolutly had to.
From a legal standpoint you are less likely to get in criminal trouble for using a firearm, because it is a lot harder to prove what happened with a bat, knife, fist, etc. and if the criminal lives and doesn't happen to have any priors you're in for a lot of legal trouble.
Also take into account things from the invaders point of view, if they see you with no weapon telling them to get the F out they will react a lot differently then if you had a bat, knife, etc. and if they happen to be 6'3 and weigh 325 pounds...well you get the idea.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 6 2004, 06:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 6 2004, 06:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-othell+Feb 6 2004, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Feb 6 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know about anyone else here, but if someone were to break into my home, regardless if their intent is to just steal or to inflict physical harm, I would feel threatened. Should I ask the intruder if he plans to just take valuables or if he has any intentions of harming either my family or myself? If you say yes, then I'll happily go along with that... Just after I shoot first. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is something I don't understand. When someone breaks in to your house, WHY THE HELL do you have to go look what's going on? If you truely don't want to get in to a conflict and don't care that much about posession, you stay in your room, make noise and call the cops. What most of the gun owners seem to do is that they charge right in to the same room with the burglar so that he doesn't even have time to get out and starts blasting. After that the owner just says "I felt really threatend there" Like in that farmer case, why couldn't he wait for the cops or for the guy to break a window or so? But nooooo, he had to go outside and shoot instead of staying inside.
ffs 1) Stay in your room 2) Call the cops 3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house 4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey Nemisis, I want to know, is dread breaking the rules as I did before to terms #1 and #3?
Because if dread's not breaking them right now, then I'm afraid I don't understand the rules very well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Somehow I'm starting to feel that yanks don't get guns because they have the need to protect their families. Maybe it's just an excuse for everyone, including yourself, to have a weapon. I know, it's a real powertrip to hold a gun and maybe it's just something that makes you feel secure. Gives you the feeling that you are in charge of things. Kinda like when you were a kid, you had a teddybear that was supposed to scare away the monsters under your bed. Surely it didn't do that, but the teddy was there bringing comfort.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would be breaking the idea of considering wether or not the other side could be possibly right.
Anyhow, Dread, all I must say is that while some consider Gun's to be a powertrip, I'm sure there are many hardworking parents who see a gun as a method of last resort to protect themselves and their family when all else fails. Nothing kills guarenteed like a gun does.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 6 2004, 06:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 6 2004, 06:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is something I don't understand. When someone breaks in to your house, WHY THE HELL do you have to go look what's going on? If you truely don't want to get in to a conflict and don't care that much about posession, you stay in your room, make noise and call the cops. What most of the gun owners seem to do is that they charge right in to the same room with the burglar so that he doesn't even have time to get out and starts blasting. After that the owner just says "I felt really threatend there" Like in that farmer case, why couldn't he wait for the cops or for the guy to break a window or so? But nooooo, he had to go outside and shoot instead of staying inside.
ffs 1) Stay in your room 2) Call the cops 3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house 4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the thing... Its my house. Its my possessions. Its my right to protect both. If someone were to break into my house, I would feel threatened whether I saw them or not. Would I go charging in? No. Would I go see what was up? Yes, cautiously. Would I shoot automatically? Personally no.
For most people it is not about a powertrip when it comes to home protection. Its simple logic... What would work best? Bat or a gun? Gun. Knife or a gun? Gun. Poisonous dart or a gun? Gun.
When someone breaks into your home, you don't assume that they are unarmed. If they have a knife/bat/crowbar/golfclub and you have a gun... You have a better chance. If they have nothing and you have a gun... You have a great chance. If they have a gun and you have a gun... Then you are at least on equal footing ( theoretically ). So why handicap yourself from the get-go? I know I won't and I won't put my life in the hands of the police when it is my house becaue the crook is there, I'm there... But there are no police there. Maybe I'm heroic... Or a cowboy... Or proud... Or just not a coward; but that doesn't really matter.
If you're wondering... I have no home of my own ( rent a room and have roomies ), I have no firearm of my own here ( I do have a shotgun, but its with my father locked up and only used for hunting ), I have no family at this time ( although I will be marred in June ) and I'm not a member of the NRA. This just so that there are no assumptions about me as a gun-toting southern redneck.
Some laws state if an innocent victim is attacked in any public place where he or she has a right to be, it is lawful for that victim to hold his or her ground and defend their self with necessary force, including lethal force if warranted.
Other states so emphasize the principle that deadly force must be a last resort -- the exception being an attack in the victim's home where Common Law principle of "the castle doctrine" applies -- that the victim is required to at least attempt a retreat before applying lethal force. However, all such jurisdictions make it clear that retreat is only demanded when accomplished in complete safety to oneself and others.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 6 2004, 03:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 6 2004, 03:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey Nemisis, I want to know, is dread breaking the rules as I did before to terms #1 and #3? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So I'm not being rational? I guess 'ffs' makes me a ranting incoherent lunatic? Well, I admit the ranting and maybe even incoherrent but lunatic...nah. I prefer madman <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because if dread's not breaking them right now, then I'm afraid I don't understand the rules very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't take pressure about that. Someday you will <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Somehow I'm starting to feel that yanks don't get guns because they have the need to protect their families. Maybe it's just an excuse for everyone, including yourself, to have a weapon. I know, it's a real powertrip to hold a gun and maybe it's just something that makes you feel secure. Gives you the feeling that you are in charge of things. Kinda like when you were a kid, you had a teddybear that was supposed to scare away the monsters under your bed. Surely it didn't do that, but the teddy was there bringing comfort.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would be breaking the idea of considering wether or not the other side could be possibly right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Howcome so? I was merely expressing how I'm starting to feel. It doesn't mean I haven't considered the possibility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyhow, Dread, all I must say is that while some consider Gun's to be a powertrip, I'm sure there are many hardworking parents who see a gun as a method of last resort to protect themselves and their family when all else fails. Nothing kills guarenteed like a gun does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point was that othell worded it so that he didn't have absolutely choice when someone breaks in to his house. It's like an automatic conflict, where as in reality, you can actually try to avoid it if you want to. If you don't care about the posession(like othell said) and you don't want anyone to get hurt, you don't go to check it out. It's completely another story and subject if you DO want to go and confront the burglar, but then don't say you didn't have a choice or you didn't want anyone to get hurt. We don't live in a feudal society, we have phones and officers of the law. Besides, a small dog keeps most of the burglars away just by barking a lot. Isn't that better than getting a gun?
If you want to protect your family when all else fail, the 'all else' is the part where you stay away from the burglar. If you go out blasting, then it's not the last resort weapon, as you want to use it even before the burglar has threatened you. THEN it's a last resort if the burglar comes looking for you with a machete when he hears your voice.
Guns are for pansies who are scared of a little blood, real men sleep with a thirty inch blade by their side <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Like I said the study of balistics and firearm forensics is reached near perfection in the US, when you shoot someone a forensic expert can tell what angle you shot them from, where the bullet entered, how far you were standing from the person, what the tempature in the room was, which direction the person was facing, etc. With a knife theres a stab wound, most likely a physical struggle between you and the intruder, high chance for physical injury to yourself, and very hard to prove what actually happened if the intruder, or his family (if you killed him) decide to press charges.
plus in kansas if you slice someone in half with a katana you can be ruled criminally insane.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 6 2004, 02:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 6 2004, 02:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> plus in kansas if you slice someone in half with a katana you can be ruled criminally insane. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What if you slice them into thirds with a butterknife? And I don't use a katana, ick, a broadsword is about a thousand times more intimidating.
Besides with the knife, it means you can get in close, which means the burgler can swing away or something, and you can EASILY prove he was a threat, much more then a bullet that could've been fired two hundred feet away where you might not even know who he was.
<!--QuoteBegin-SuperTeflon+Feb 6 2004, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SuperTeflon @ Feb 6 2004, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Guns are for pansies who are scared of a little blood, real men sleep with a thirty inch blade by their side <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Great idea, you pull out your super cool broadsword, and he'll just pop ya one in the face with a pistol.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Great idea, you pull out your super cool broadsword, and he'll just pop ya one in the face with a pistol. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
indiana jones taught him well <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Burncycle+Feb 6 2004, 01:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Feb 6 2004, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Some laws state if an innocent victim is attacked in any public place where he or she has a right to be, it is lawful for that victim to hold his or her ground and defend their self with necessary force, including lethal force if warranted.
Other states so emphasize the principle that deadly force must be a last resort -- the exception being an attack in the victim's home where Common Law principle of "the castle doctrine" applies -- that the victim is required to at least attempt a retreat before applying lethal force. However, all such jurisdictions make it clear that retreat is only demanded when accomplished in complete safety to oneself and others. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The castle law states that you <b>do not have to</b> retreat even if it is safe to do so, so long as you are in your own home.
And in California if you are witnessing a crime of mayham (includes robbery, assault, rape) you can use up to lethal force
Comments
While I did not buy my firearm specifically for home defense, it is there if I ever do need it.
That's like having a handy dandy keychain that can also stop lighting strikes. I wouldn't buy it specifically to stop the lightening strikes, but it sure is comfy knowing I have it if I'm out in a thunderstorm.
Well ok, that was a pathetic example, lol.
What I'm trying to say is that I didn't buy a firearm specifically to defend my home- but it is there though, so if the other security features fail, I have yet another possibility. It's no garuntee, but neither are the others.
There's nothing that says you can't have a security system, a dog, a maneating scarecrow, and a firearm. I consider it a last line of defense and when it comes into play it is absolutely necessary.
The basic argument behind the idea of violent home defense, be it in the form of firearms, physical violence, or anything of the likes goes, summarized, along the lines of this:
- Police forces are not capable of preventing the escalation of an already existing situation due to various reasons ranging from incompetence to simple distance.
- In case of a home invasion with violent intention, one should thus have every right at preventing the crime oneself.
- Violent intent might play a role in but a statistically insignificant portion of the actual amount of home invasions, but seeing the possibly gruesome outcome of such a crime, it is adviseable and understandeable to assume the worst.
Sometimes, a violent case in the immediate vicinity of the speaker is cited to emphasize that what is being discussed here is not out of the world, but a very real threat.
Now, let me ask you two questions:
Do you fear being hit by lightning?
Do you take clear and constant precautions specifically geared at this possibility?
If you have answered both of these questions with "no", you can not continue using the argumentation I outlined above, because, cite as many 'guns have saved my life' stories as you wish, the fact remains that such a situation is about as likely to happen to you or your close ones as a - comparably lethal - lightning strike.
Yet, you advocate the use of a firearm, which almost inevitably produces an amount of accidental violence by far bigger than the eventuality you are trying to defend yourself against in the first place.
Additional to this, there is no guarantee that a firearm will safe you in a violent situation - one could even argue that it'll be more likely to escalate an otherwise relatively harmless situation into a violent situation using a gun than it is to actually resolve one -, and there are, as Ryo pointed out without of being argumentatively refuted so far, by far better and less risky precautions.
Concluding, while the gun / the otherwise violent resolution of the issue might appeal as the instinctively better choice, there appears to be no rational grounds on which to support this feeling.
I'm living twenty meters from a place where an escaped rapist molested and murdered a woman. Yet, my mother, my sister and myself barely bother to close the backdoor at night, knowing that nothing unreplaceable is in any real danger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nem:
The constitution of the USA states that you have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say we have "the right to life, libert, and pursuit of hapiness...as long as it's rational. By the way, you should be satisfied with having this right 99% of the time".
If someone decided that they needed a suit of rubber armor to prevent getting hit by lightning, he has the right to do so.
Similarly, if someone decides that they need a firearm to defend his property, then by the second amendment he is allowed to have one.
I really don't see how your point about the fact that no one takes "extreme measures" to prevent getting hit by lightning invalidates the arguments for the possession of firearms. First of all, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people who are struck by lightning each year, while there are tens of thousands of victims of crimes involving some sort of physical force or another (check the FBI site, they have statistics for several past years). I consider that a situation in which I would have to defend myself will arise far more often than me getting struck by lightning. You know why? Because you can easily avoid any chance of being struck by lightning at all. Unfortunately, there is no such way to guarantee that you won't be robbed or raped or assaulted.
As for your argument about not actually resolving a situation or turning it into a violent one, the aggressor party should have known better. I do believe death or serious bodily injury does resolve a situation in a very final sense.
As was pointed out earlier, accidental injuries and death from firearms mainly result from poor education or a user who is not trained to use it. I'm sure there are many people who cut their fingers while using a knife or scissors, or **** themselves with needles while sewing. By your logic, these items shouldn't be used either.
And to end this post, yay for "make my day", concealed weapons laws, and this:
<img src='http://www.funehumor.com/images/fun/shotgun.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The difference being??
Anyways... I agree. Its my home. End of story. People have the right to defend their property and themselves. I will protect my property, my family and myself to my best ability. If that includes owning a firearm in my own home then that is my right.
I don't know about anyone else here, but if someone were to break into my home, regardless if their intent is to just steal or to inflict physical harm, I would feel threatened. Should I ask the intruder if he plans to just take valuables or if he has any intentions of harming either my family or myself? If you say yes, then I'll happily go along with that... Just after I shoot first. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If I do not have the right to defend my own home, then this freedom we so cherish is nonexistent.
Gun however, is rather expensive teddybear. It costs lives, innocent ones too(jealous husband shoots wife in anger, kid finds dads gun etc).
My final take: you have the right to protect yourself, but don't exaggerate. Extremes are bad, mmkay? (Extremes: not locking your doors at all or using lethal force against a kid trying to steal some cigarettes/booze)
This is something I don't understand. When someone breaks in to your house, WHY THE HELL do you have to go look what's going on? If you truely don't want to get in to a conflict and don't care that much about posession, you stay in your room, make noise and call the cops. What most of the gun owners seem to do is that they charge right in to the same room with the burglar so that he doesn't even have time to get out and starts blasting. After that the owner just says "I felt really threatend there" Like in that farmer case, why couldn't he wait for the cops or for the guy to break a window or so? But nooooo, he had to go outside and shoot instead of staying inside.
ffs
1) Stay in your room
2) Call the cops
3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house
4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a nice stereotype there. First, im Canadian. Second I hunt. Third, target shooting is fun. You play videogames for fun, i play videogames and shoot targets for fun. Its like burncycle said, if i didnt hunt or target shoot, i would not own a gun. Plenty of other ways to defend myself.
What makes you think I directed my post to you? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sure there are people who have guns for other purposes, but I'm talking about people who get them only for self-defence. I feel the gun just makes you feel really secure, even though you know in the back of your head it really doesn't help that much.
Edit: When I say 'you', I don't mean YOU, BadKarma, but as in you in generalized form. English ownzors my head <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This is something I don't understand. When someone breaks in to your house, WHY THE HELL do you have to go look what's going on? If you truely don't want to get in to a conflict and don't care that much about posession, you stay in your room, make noise and call the cops. What most of the gun owners seem to do is that they charge right in to the same room with the burglar so that he doesn't even have time to get out and starts blasting. After that the owner just says "I felt really threatend there" Like in that farmer case, why couldn't he wait for the cops or for the guy to break a window or so? But nooooo, he had to go outside and shoot instead of staying inside.
ffs
1) Stay in your room
2) Call the cops
3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house
4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait I'm supposed to stay in my room, in my house, when someone forces entry and let that person take whichever of my possesion they desire because I want to avoid conflict?
Let me break it down to you, there are very, very few career criminals in the world, the people who break into peoples' homes are desperate, they usually need a fix, or are just not in a right state of mind, they aren't likely to paruse your home looking for the most valuable items, take them and leave without incident, and even if they did the chances that next time they needed cash they would know exactly where to go.
If every homeowner had this mentality there would be nothing to stop a burgler from just breaking into homes without discretion. Fear of being arrested, he's most likely a repeat offender, unable to find employment (See my views on the ridiculous criminal system in the US) and not likely to have many regrets about taking what you worked hard to earn.
I understand it's the instinct of most liberals to not blame the person for his crimes, a lot of people have an idiological belief that people are inherintly good, and that their enviorment drives them to commit crimes. Even so it is not the obligation of the citizen to be the one take this into consideration, if the goverment were willing to make sweeping changes to socio-economic changes then yes we wouldn't have to worry about defending ourselves in our own homes. But that is a discussion for another thread, and if you want feel free to make it and I'll discuss it there.
Seriously, though, a mix would be ideal. That way your home is protected while you're away and defended with lethal force while your home.
Y'all should watch the movie Bowling For Columbine.
Y'all should watch the movie Bowling For Columbine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, with about a kilo of salt.
And sorry Dread, im kinda cranky.
I agree with dread. (Oh I feel so dirty...) Hearing a sound, picking up a weapon, of any sort, not just firearms, and then calling the police and waiting, is one thing. If he comes in and you're forced to remove him from the gene pool, you really did not have any other choice. Going in to check it out, and winds up someone getting killed, provided you survived the encounter, you MIGHT hold up in court......but you might not. Are you REALLY willing to risk the next couple decades of your life over some #%)@*# if you don't absolutely have to? (Granted, again, situation governs all. If you hear a window break in the next room, and there's 3 rooms between you and your wife/child/etc., then IMO you do whatever is needed to get between anyone coming inside, and your loved ones.)
From a legal standpoint you are less likely to get in criminal trouble for using a firearm, because it is a lot harder to prove what happened with a bat, knife, fist, etc. and if the criminal lives and doesn't happen to have any priors you're in for a lot of legal trouble.
Also take into account things from the invaders point of view, if they see you with no weapon telling them to get the F out they will react a lot differently then if you had a bat, knife, etc. and if they happen to be 6'3 and weigh 325 pounds...well you get the idea.
This is something I don't understand. When someone breaks in to your house, WHY THE HELL do you have to go look what's going on? If you truely don't want to get in to a conflict and don't care that much about posession, you stay in your room, make noise and call the cops. What most of the gun owners seem to do is that they charge right in to the same room with the burglar so that he doesn't even have time to get out and starts blasting. After that the owner just says "I felt really threatend there" Like in that farmer case, why couldn't he wait for the cops or for the guy to break a window or so? But nooooo, he had to go outside and shoot instead of staying inside.
ffs
1) Stay in your room
2) Call the cops
3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house
4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey Nemisis, I want to know, is dread breaking the rules as I did before to terms #1 and #3?
Because if dread's not breaking them right now, then I'm afraid I don't understand the rules very well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Somehow I'm starting to feel that yanks don't get guns because they have the need to protect their families. Maybe it's just an excuse for everyone, including yourself, to have a weapon. I know, it's a real powertrip to hold a gun and maybe it's just something that makes you feel secure. Gives you the feeling that you are in charge of things. Kinda like when you were a kid, you had a teddybear that was supposed to scare away the monsters under your bed. Surely it didn't do that, but the teddy was there bringing comfort.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would be breaking the idea of considering wether or not the other side could be possibly right.
Anyhow, Dread, all I must say is that while some consider Gun's to be a powertrip, I'm sure there are many hardworking parents who see a gun as a method of last resort to protect themselves and their family when all else fails. Nothing kills guarenteed like a gun does.
ffs
1) Stay in your room
2) Call the cops
3) Make noise, so that the burglar knows there's someone else in the house
4) Point your gun at the door
If he still comes in to your room to confront you, shoot him. Then no one can blame you, however don't go out to check what's going on. That only makes the burglar panic(if he's armed, he'll likely protect himself).
Or if you go out, then you REALLY just wanted to shoot him afraid of possibly losing stereos. This is not directed to othell but to everyone: it takes much more balls to stay calm and forget the stereos than go out panicking and endangering lives(yours, his, your loved ones).
Edit: Yeah, I'm ranting and this is certainly sliding to right to own guns topic. Sorry about that, I just always get worked up over stuff like this <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the thing... Its my house. Its my possessions. Its my right to protect both. If someone were to break into my house, I would feel threatened whether I saw them or not. Would I go charging in? No. Would I go see what was up? Yes, cautiously. Would I shoot automatically? Personally no.
For most people it is not about a powertrip when it comes to home protection. Its simple logic... What would work best? Bat or a gun? Gun. Knife or a gun? Gun. Poisonous dart or a gun? Gun.
When someone breaks into your home, you don't assume that they are unarmed. If they have a knife/bat/crowbar/golfclub and you have a gun... You have a better chance. If they have nothing and you have a gun... You have a great chance. If they have a gun and you have a gun... Then you are at least on equal footing ( theoretically ). So why handicap yourself from the get-go? I know I won't and I won't put my life in the hands of the police when it is my house becaue the crook is there, I'm there... But there are no police there. Maybe I'm heroic... Or a cowboy... Or proud... Or just not a coward; but that doesn't really matter.
If you're wondering... I have no home of my own ( rent a room and have roomies ), I have no firearm of my own here ( I do have a shotgun, but its with my father locked up and only used for hunting ), I have no family at this time ( although I will be marred in June ) and I'm not a member of the NRA. This just so that there are no assumptions about me as a gun-toting southern redneck.
Other states so emphasize the principle that deadly force must be a last resort -- the exception being an attack in the victim's home where Common Law principle of "the castle doctrine" applies -- that the victim is required to at least attempt a retreat before applying lethal force. However, all such jurisdictions make it clear that retreat is only demanded when accomplished in complete safety to oneself and others.
So I'm not being rational? I guess 'ffs' makes me a ranting incoherent lunatic? Well, I admit the ranting and maybe even incoherrent but lunatic...nah. I prefer madman <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because if dread's not breaking them right now, then I'm afraid I don't understand the rules very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't take pressure about that. Someday you will <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Somehow I'm starting to feel that yanks don't get guns because they have the need to protect their families. Maybe it's just an excuse for everyone, including yourself, to have a weapon. I know, it's a real powertrip to hold a gun and maybe it's just something that makes you feel secure. Gives you the feeling that you are in charge of things. Kinda like when you were a kid, you had a teddybear that was supposed to scare away the monsters under your bed. Surely it didn't do that, but the teddy was there bringing comfort.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would be breaking the idea of considering wether or not the other side could be possibly right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Howcome so? I was merely expressing how I'm starting to feel. It doesn't mean I haven't considered the possibility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyhow, Dread, all I must say is that while some consider Gun's to be a powertrip, I'm sure there are many hardworking parents who see a gun as a method of last resort to protect themselves and their family when all else fails. Nothing kills guarenteed like a gun does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point was that othell worded it so that he didn't have absolutely choice when someone breaks in to his house. It's like an automatic conflict, where as in reality, you can actually try to avoid it if you want to. If you don't care about the posession(like othell said) and you don't want anyone to get hurt, you don't go to check it out. It's completely another story and subject if you DO want to go and confront the burglar, but then don't say you didn't have a choice or you didn't want anyone to get hurt. We don't live in a feudal society, we have phones and officers of the law. Besides, a small dog keeps most of the burglars away just by barking a lot. Isn't that better than getting a gun?
If you want to protect your family when all else fail, the 'all else' is the part where you stay away from the burglar. If you go out blasting, then it's not the last resort weapon, as you want to use it even before the burglar has threatened you. THEN it's a last resort if the burglar comes looking for you with a machete when he hears your voice.
plus in kansas if you slice someone in half with a katana you can be ruled criminally insane.
What if you slice them into thirds with a butterknife? And I don't use a katana, ick, a broadsword is about a thousand times more intimidating.
Besides with the knife, it means you can get in close, which means the burgler can swing away or something, and you can EASILY prove he was a threat, much more then a bullet that could've been fired two hundred feet away where you might not even know who he was.
Great idea, you pull out your super cool broadsword, and he'll just pop ya one in the face with a pistol.
indiana jones taught him well <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Other states so emphasize the principle that deadly force must be a last resort -- the exception being an attack in the victim's home where Common Law principle of "the castle doctrine" applies -- that the victim is required to at least attempt a retreat before applying lethal force. However, all such jurisdictions make it clear that retreat is only demanded when accomplished in complete safety to oneself and others. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The castle law states that you <b>do not have to</b> retreat even if it is safe to do so, so long as you are in your own home.
And in California if you are witnessing a crime of mayham (includes robbery, assault, rape) you can use up to lethal force
<a href='http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf' target='_blank'>clicky</a> page 30