117 replies to this topic

[Beowulf]

Obviously the guy breaking in doesn't give a shit, why should I? Why, at any point, should I consider him when he's not offering the same? He chose to break the law, and if he happens to be killed in the process, well, tough shit. If you don't want to get shot by a home owner, don't break the law.

[Pasidon]

At least he didn't fire an RPG at her. We fail to see that the situation was resolved as peacefully as possible.

[Rattuskid]

This is a pretty shitty and small article. Some assholes do use castle doctrine to kill otherwise surrendered intruders. I don't see how one case justifies a 'need' though. This is a dumbass's fault. Had he hit his fiance with a pickup thinking she was a deer, he'd be just as much of a dumbass, and you wouldn't be demanding 'truck control'.

And so if he wasn't so trigger happy, if America had proper gun laws, his fiancée wouldn't be dead.

If he just flipped on the light the same outcome. This comes down a lot to what you define as 'proper'. Would a mandatory registration system, and licensing prevented him from making a rash judgment? No. Gun control is a statistical approach, believing that removing guns reduces, statistically, not wholly, gun violence. Surely some Australians, despite having very few guns, are accidentally shot each year? I'd imagine you have 'proper' laws in your eyes, so why is that number not an absolute zero?

This is the serious divergence between legislating to reduce or improve statistics in a preventative way and legislating to hold people accountable for their actions after the fact. America is a society, guns aside, that strongly leans towards the later of these two scenarios.

You don't need guns.

This is not a wholly true statement, although in stark technicality, I do understand why this is correct.

What Americans really are on about with 'gun rights' is defensive rights. I don't think you can deny I have a right to defend myself. What's different between say, America and Australia or America and the UK is we have borders. People can, do and always will smuggle drugs, money, people and weapons across them.

On an island, especially one with very strict gun control for many years, guns are close to non-existent in the hands of violent offenders. Still, police have bullet proof vests in your nation I'd imagine. Here, even if a total ban were to happen tomorrow, Chinese weapons would trickle in from Canada, and Russian ones from Mexico. Criminals only buy all their guns from gun shops in the GTA universe. If the threat of a firearm is a real possibility to me, to my loved ones, then self-defense can mean either kevlar, or a firearm. The later just wraps up the situation and works better in an environment where I have a legal right to stand my ground.

Until very recently I too did not own a gun. Today, I own one, a semi-auto carbine that I imagine would be quite difficult to obtain in your country. I've also been 'lent' handguns by friends when I sleep over their place for the night. As of yet, I have not pointed it at another human in malice (or otherwise, rule 2!), but I have used a knife in a situation where I was confronted in a city, and I know such a knife (locking) would have been illicit in a place like the UK.

Many people never wear seat belts and live perfectly healthy lives. That doesn't mean it's wise.

About 9,000 Americans a year, give or take are killed in gun violence a year. Much less when you discount suicides.

About 40,000 die in auto accidents a year. Using the logic of gun control, this means we have too many dangerous vehicles on the streets and need urgent measures to curb their numbers, right?

Placing the value of your precious material belongings over the life of another human being is pathetically self-centred.

While I agree with your sentiment, people in these situations usually have something other than just 'things' they are protecting. Unlike 99% of Revora, they have kids. If someone broke into your child's room... you aren't going to shoot him because you fear for your TV.

Edited by Rattuskid, 12 October 2009 - 02:54 AM.

[Bart]

Had he hit his fiance with a pickup thinking she was a deer, he'd be just as much of a dumbass, and you wouldn't be demanding 'truck control'.

Are you implying that if you see a deer crossing the road, you can hit it even if it's possible to stop?

What's different between say, America and Australia or America and the UK is we have borders.

What about all the other countries with borders and gun laws? Smuggling into the UK is also much easier than into the US. You can get it from France and the Netherlands without any checks at all.

[GodSun666]

Hahaha... this actually made me laugh for some reason.

[some_weirdGuy]

Surely some Australians, despite having very few guns, are accidentally shot each year? I'd imagine you have 'proper' laws in your eyes, so why is that number not an absolute zero?

cause cops still have guns and shoot people?
cause guns aren't banned outright, just restricted and controlled.

And the number of gun deaths in Australia, with its gun laws, would obviously be less then America, without its gun laws. The fact that you never hear of this kind of crap in Australia supports this.

And facts and logic indicate: less guns = less people dieing from guns. Its pretty obvious. If there were proper gun laws, he wouldn't have gone stright out, grabbed his gun, and filled his fiance with lead. He would have possible grabbed some household object to use as a weapon, or gone in and checked things out properly instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

And he payed for it. a number of things could have prevented it. Proper gunlaws in america is a more widespread solution, and something they should have anyway. The only reason they had them was because of civil strife which is long over. Every man and his dog doesn't need a gun anymore...

[Tom]

Surely some Australians, despite having very few guns, are accidentally shot each year? I'd imagine you have 'proper' laws in your eyes, so why is that number not an absolute zero?

cause cops still have guns and shoot people?
cause guns aren't banned outright, just restricted and controlled.

And the number of gun deaths in Australia, with its gun laws, would obviously be less then America, without its gun laws. The fact that you never hear of this kind of crap in Australia supports this.

And facts and logic indicate: less guns = less people dieing from guns. Its pretty obvious. If there were proper gun laws, he wouldn't have gone stright out, grabbed his gun, and filled his fiance with lead. He would have possible grabbed some household object to use as a weapon, or gone in and checked things out properly instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

And he payed for it. a number of things could have prevented it. Proper gunlaws in america is a more widespread solution, and something they should have anyway. The only reason they had them was because of civil strife which is long over. Every man and his dog doesn't need a gun anymore...

Under that logic. If it was a burglar who had broken into his house. It is possible that the burglar would have had a gun which he may have obtained illegally through the illegal arms trade in every country. Even if guns are illegal, criminals can still get them.

Your argument is that if guns were illegal in America then this poor little women might still be alive because her retarded finance wouldn't of had a gun to shoot her. True but we've had this debate before. Making guns illegal doesn't stop gun crime and weapon abuse. Like Rattus said, it lowers it statistically but it still occurs. Also, when you make guns illegal only law abiding people hand in their weapons. It also makes it easier for criminals to target the law abiding easier as some criminals know where to get guns even when they are illegal. If guns are banned, all criminals know that you can break into a house and have no one come at you with a gun. You might be artificially lowering crime in one area, but it only consequently rises in another. We have seen that in Britain since 1997.

I don't put my personal possessions over a human life, but I do put my own life over the life of someone who doesn't give a shit about human life. Let the law abiding people defend themselves.

[Ash]

Agreed, Tom.

The person who has broken - illegally - into my house has surely absolved himself of the right to legal protection, because he has broken the law. Of course, this is the UK and the EU, where prisoners are afforded greater rights, privileges and protections than victims and the families of victims. The right to enjoy safety, security and self-defence does not exist this side of the Atlantic.

Gun laws don't prevent gun crime as much as people think. The fact that criminals work outside the law means that they'll be able to find some means to obtain them. It may cost a bit more, and be a bit more difficult, than if they were sold in Tesco but if a criminal wants to get hold of a gun, it's more than possible. If it wasn't, gun crime would be nonexistent in the UK. And this places all the power in the hands of the criminals, because average joe civilian has no means by which to defend himself against a dickhead with a gun. I'm not saying guns should be permitted out on the street, but home defence should be much more permissible. Personally, were I a judge I'd just acquit anyone who killed a burglar. Such criminal scum will never stop committing such crimes, and will effectively have a prison cell reserved for their personal use. What's the point in punishing someone for defending their property? It practically gives a legal sanction for burglary! If they get dead, that's their luck out, and society's better off without them, because they'll only reoffend after their community service/suspended sentence/6 weeks in the nick are up.

Same goes for murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. Just get rid. They're a waste of a prison cell, they're a waste of air and a waste of space on this Earth. Society is better off with them permanently removed from it.

There should be procedure and protocol, though. You should be required to give a warning - either a warning shot or a demand to surrender or be shot. Such a rule would make this man legally - and justifiably - culpable.

[Vortigern]

Agreed. You chose to live outside the law, you take the rough with the smooth. The chance of a quick payoff tempered with the possibility of getting shot in the face. It'd make me think twice.

http://en.wikipedia....Martin_(farmer)

British farmer who killed a burglar and was sentenced for murder. Admittedly, there's a lot more to this story than just that, but the essence is that he shot an intruder and got sentenced to life in prison for it (later lowered to five years, the charge reduced to manslaughter. But still...) Actually he's a crazy schizophrenic nutjob, but he served to raise awareness of this problem.

[Puppeteer]

smart gun owners

Sorry?

[Elvenlord]

Oh don't be stupid puppet. My family owns guns, but we've never used them. We didn't even have ammunition until Hurricane Ike ripped through. I'm glad we did, at least on two occasions we had someone try to break into the house. And with no power, calling the cops were out of the question, unless we got lucky and found a cell phone. And even then, the police in our area are terrible. I've said it before, but it took half an hour for a cop to show up after I got hit by a car. 45 minutes for an ambulance.

I think the point alot of you are missing is the fact that people like him would still have their guns even with guns laws. They're almost certain to ignore any calls to turn in their guns, and this country is far too large to go door to door. And that's not even going into how dangerous that could be.

[Bereneth Túrien]

Gun control really isn't the problem here. Stupid people are the problem. And sadly, there isn't a reasonable solution. If people are going to be stupid, we can't change their minds.

[Ash]

Oh don't be stupid puppet. My family owns guns, but we've never used them. We didn't even have ammunition until Hurricane Ike ripped through.

Lol, sorry - this post of mine has no specific point except to point out the logic lulz in this. I know you explained your reasoning after, but still...the idea that a hurricane made you decide to get ammo for the guns amused me.
[yokel]'Ey Brandine - Git me the shawtguun, we gawt hai wee-yunds curmin ee-yun! Ahm gunna shoot 'em to get 'um awfa mah prahpperty![/yokel].

[Puppeteer]

Haha Ash, I thought along the same lines.

Oh don't be stupid puppet. My family owns guns, but we've never used them. We didn't even have ammunition until Hurricane Ike ripped through. I'm glad we did, at least on two occasions we had someone try to break into the house. And with no power, calling the cops were out of the question, unless we got lucky and found a cell phone. And even then, the police in our area are terrible. I've said it before, but it took half an hour for a cop to show up after I got hit by a car. 45 minutes for an ambulance.

Oh come on, could you honestly not see that it wasn't serious? Did I need to litter it with emoticons to make it glaringly obvious?
If you're that easily offended you need to take things a little less seriously. Especially on an internet forum.

Edited by Puppeteer, 12 October 2009 - 08:59 PM.

[Allathar]

No, it wasn't that obvious, Puppet.

[Puppeteer]

Oh dear, silly ole me.

[Mathijs]

You were right though.

Yeah, I went there. You don't need guns.

[Rattuskid]

Are you implying that if you see a deer crossing the road, you can hit it even if it's possible to stop?

Legally? No. Does it happen? Haha:wink_new:

What about all the other countries with borders and gun laws? Smuggling into the UK is also much easier than into the US. You can get it from France and the Netherlands without any checks at all.

Literally tons of drugs, people, and weapons flow across the US borders with Mexico and Canada. More people and drugs still come in through Miami from Cuba. Container ships from China on the west coast only get every 20th container scanned.

If all this volume of contraband was flowing into the UK, you'd run out of places to STORE IT.

And facts and logic indicate: less guns = less people dieing from guns. Its pretty obvious. If there were proper gun laws, he wouldn't have gone stright out, grabbed his gun, and filled his fiance with lead.

I still don't understand this logic, because it's utterly faulty. For comparison; in Germany it is MUCH harder to attain, license for, and afford a car than in the US. Less people die per capita in car accidents there. However, they have 'proper' vehicle laws in Germany, and the potentially deadly machines are well regulated. So why do people still die in Germany of car accidents?

Maybe because it's not the cars, but the people you should watch for.

Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Switzerland yet. The nation where they GIVE the average citizen an assault rifle, and has less fatalities per capita due to gun deaths than the US.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Maybe people are smarter in Switzerland.

Obviously the guy breaking in doesn't give a shit, why should I? Why, at any point, should I consider him when he's not offering the same? He chose to break the law, and if he happens to be killed in the process, well, tough shit. If you don't want to get shot by a home owner, don't break the law.

Doesn't give a shit?

Not all criminals are evil people seeking to kill you.
Sometimes it could be someone who hasn't eaten for a week and is just hungry but then again it could be someone who is stealing shit to pay for drugs or whatever.
His/Her life still matters and they're entitled to it.
As Matias said if they're gonna break in threaten to blow their heads off,if they come towards you shoot them in the foot.
But don't kill them.
When you do you become a murderer "self defence" of not.

[Beowulf]

Doesn't give a shit?

Yes. Exactly. Do you honestly believe that a low-level criminal resorting to burglarizing a house really gives a goddamn about me, my family or property? No. He's there to steal. He forfeits a lot of rights when he - illegally - enters my residence.

Not all criminals are evil people seeking to kill you.

Whether or not their intent is to kill is entirely irrelevant. I have the right to defend myself, family and property. That is not negated at any point.

Sometimes it could be someone who hasn't eaten for a week and is just hungry but then again it could be someone who is stealing shit to pay for drugs or whatever.

Someone who hasn't eaten for a week doesn't usually break into a house. It's usually a business. At night. Or something blatant to get tossed into jail for a few days.

His/Her life still matters and they're entitled to it.

Do they? Do they always? I beg to differ.

As Matias said if they're gonna break in threaten to blow their heads off,if they come towards you shoot them in the foot.
But don't kill them.

Why not? Have you been in this situation? Quite a lot tells me the opposite. You don't understand why people shoot to kill and not to simply wound. I have been in this position. It's not fun.

When you do you become a murderer "self defence" of not.

No you do not.