Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Unfortunately, people have the right to break into your home, threaten your life, and if you kill or seriously maim them, your actions may still be deemed 'unjustified' and you can actually go to jail or prison for simply defending your life and home.
The laws on intruders needed to be harsher for them, and lessened for the home owner in this country, very much so.
No, this "right" does not exist. Anywhere. You made that up.
No, this "right" does not exist. Anywhere. You made that up.
You are right, they don't. They just get punished less severely than the home owner in many cases in the event the home owner has to defend themselves against common criminals.
You are right, they don't. They just get punished less severely than the home owner in many cases in the event the home owner has to defend themselves against common criminals.
Since the maximum penalty for Break and Enter With Intent, Committing Indictable Offence (dwelling house), Robbery (with firearm) and Extortion (with firearm) is life in prison I think you may want to re-think that statement.
Unfortunately, people have the right to break into your home, threaten your life, and if you kill or seriously maim them, your actions may still be deemed 'unjustified' and you can actually go to jail or prison for simply defending your life and home.
The laws on intruders needed to be harsher for them, and lessened for the home owner in this country, very much so.
What happened to common sense? If I don't want to get shot then I don't break into people's houses. It's a simple concept. I have no sympathy for stupid people who die in these kinds of situations. You as the thief put yourself in that situation and thus you as the thief have to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
I somebody breaks into my home, I am not going to have a conversation to find out their intentions. My family's lives are at stake. I don't know how many of them there are, I don't know if they are armed, I don't know what they want. All I know is that they are in my house and committing a crime.
I am fully within my rights to defend myself, my family and my home. Not going to chase them out into the street, but have no problem shooting first.
sure you can, just shoot at anyone who enters your house uninvited. you'll put them in a box quite quickly.
Pfft. You need to learn something about proper firearm safety. It is much, much, MUCH harder to kill someone with a gun than you see in the movies.
The idea that "shot" and "killed" are synonymous is just wrong. Even in wars, for the most part, more people die of the sort of diseases you get when you have a lot of people in one place than died of gunshot wounds, and even before surgical hygeine came into vogue, most people who got shot lived, at least for awhile.
The most likely result of a burglar getting shot by a homeowner is that he gets away with a hole in him. There's only so many things in the body that you can shoot that will actually result in death. There's a lot more that you can shoot that will result in disability or serious injury, but for really fatal wounds, it's pretty much the brain and the heart. More people die of complications like shock and blood loss than actually die of the bullet.
The incident with Trayvon Martin is an exception. For the most part, gunshot wounds are not particularly fatal. In fact, for a particularly far gone criminal (either in drugs or in rage) smaller calibers won't even slow them down that much, until they realize they've been hurt. When you take firearms training, one of the things you learn is to shoot to stop, not to kill. That means you aim for the center of mass, not fatal areas like the head. That's because stopping forward progress is the most favorable, and most predictable, result of proper use of your weapon. Also, if you can say you shot to stop, it helps a self defense plea.
That said, obviously, I'd really rather not be shot and wounded either, and some of the "survival" cases are pretty gruesome and life-altering. But the Hollywood depiction of one shot kills is not accurate. Not even the Washington Area Sniper, trained ex-military, could really kill people consistently in one shot.
The more afraid people are of shooting someone with a gun, the more they really need to go to a shooting range and learn how to properly handle one. Take the fear and mystique away from it. Also, learn the brutal reality of it at the same time. A firearm is a weapon and nothing less. Also nothing more. It is not a magic kill button, no more than a sword or a crossbow are. Nor is it a magic deal-with-people-I-don't-like button either. It's simply a bit of steel.
The single most appropriate approach to firearm regulation is to train everyone in the proper use of a gun, let everyone know what firearms can and cannot do, and then permit them to make informed decisions on when and whether to be armed.
There is "always" a less lethal way? You can't possibly be this naive.
Tasers and pepper spray do not always work, especially if the individual is close and moving towards you. Criminals have been know to shake off both rather easily and continue a violent attack.
Sometimes, lethal force is the only solution. And if someone is stupid enough to break into my home, they are stupid enough to be shot. The world will not miss them.
If it's possibly my life, and I have to choose between a chance of killing them, and a chance for my "humane" weapon failing to protect me, I'm going to prefer my safety to my attacker's.
Pfft. You need to learn something about proper firearm safety. It is much, much, MUCH harder to kill someone with a gun than you see in the movies.
The idea that "shot" and "killed" are synonymous is just wrong. Even in wars, for the most part, more people die of the sort of diseases you get when you have a lot of people in one place than died of gunshot wounds, and even before surgical hygeine came into vogue, most people who got shot lived, at least for awhile.
The most likely result of a burglar getting shot by a homeowner is that he gets away with a hole in him. There's only so many things in the body that you can shoot that will actually result in death. There's a lot more that you can shoot that will result in disability or serious injury, but for really fatal wounds, it's pretty much the brain and the heart. More people die of complications like shock and blood loss than actually die of the bullet.
The incident with Trayvon Martin is an exception. For the most part, gunshot wounds are not particularly fatal. In fact, for a particularly far gone criminal (either in drugs or in rage) smaller calibers won't even slow them down that much, until they realize they've been hurt. When you take firearms training, one of the things you learn is to shoot to stop, not to kill. That means you aim for the center of mass, not fatal areas like the head. That's because stopping forward progress is the most favorable, and most predictable, result of proper use of your weapon. Also, if you can say you shot to stop, it helps a self defense plea.
That said, obviously, I'd really rather not be shot and wounded either, and some of the "survival" cases are pretty gruesome and life-altering. But the Hollywood depiction of one shot kills is not accurate. Not even the Washington Area Sniper, trained ex-military, could really kill people consistently in one shot.
Wow, the new information being shared in this forum lately is astounding!
I was unaware that after being shot and later dying from shock, blood loss, secondary infections, etc does not mean you died from being shot. I guess anyone who is in prison for murder when the victim didn't die at the scene, but instead in hospital should be released forthwith with an appology from the state.
If it's possibly my life, and I have to choose between a chance of killing them, and a chance for my "humane" weapon failing to protect me, I'm going to prefer my safety to my attacker's.
Every.
Freaking.
Time.
If I were a woman, that would go double. Rape is a fate worse than death. I would rather die than be raped, and I would rather kill than be raped.
Nothing cool about it, but worse than death? That's pretty ridiculous.
Wow, the new information being shared in this forum lately is astounding!
I was unaware that after being shot and later dying from shock, blood loss, secondary infections, etc does not mean you died from being shot. I guess anyone who is in prison for murder when the victim didn't die at the scene, but instead in hospital should be released forthwith with an appology from the state.
Yeah, that was odd.
"He didn't die from getting shot, he just died from his body's reaction to getting shot"
Wow, the new information being shared in this forum lately is astounding!
I was unaware that after being shot and later dying from shock, blood loss, secondary infections, etc does not mean you died from being shot. I guess anyone who is in prison for murder when the victim didn't die at the scene, but instead in hospital should be released forthwith with an appology from the state.
Much of the deaths of shock, blood loss, secondary infections, etc come because medical attention was not sought in time. Especially if we're talking about criminals here. Very, very rarely do criminals get shot and the first thing they try to do is seek urgent medical attention.
If I shoot to stop someone who attacked me, and they died of the wound, or of shock, I didn't "murder" them.
Furthermore, you're missing the point. A large percentage of the time, a confrontation isn't over when the homeowner shoots a criminal. Heck, in the incident above, there were two separate engagements from the same attacker. I know of a story of a woman who shot a jilted ex-boyfriend who invaded her apartment 15 times, the last time in the head, and it was because the idiot wouldn't go down and just kept coming. Forensics bore her story out and she was exonerated.
Fifteen times.
And people think that you could have stopped that guy with mace? The gun itself was barely sufficient!
Much of the deaths of shock, blood loss, secondary infections, etc come because medical attention was not sought in time. Especially if we're talking about criminals here. Very, very rarely do criminals get shot and the first thing they try to do is seek urgent medical attention.
If I shoot to stop someone who attacked me, and they died of the wound, or of shock, I didn't "murder" them.
Furthermore, you're missing the point. A large percentage of the time, a confrontation isn't over when the homeowner shoots a criminal. Heck, in the incident above, there were two separate engagements from the same attacker. I know of a story of a woman who shot a jilted ex-boyfriend who invaded her apartment 15 times, the last time in the head, and it was because the idiot wouldn't go down and just kept coming. Forensics bore her story out and she was exonerated.
Fifteen times.
And people think that you could have stopped that guy with mace? The gun itself was barely sufficient!
I hope you're a troll with a stupid comment like that.
I hope you're a troll with a stupid comment like that.
I'm deadly serious. There is such a thing as shooting to stop. If you don't believe me, go get trained in handgun safety and report back.
Most of the time when someone is shot in self defense, the goal of the shooter is not to kill them. It's to stop the attack. If they die of the wound, that's just tough. But then, I'd say the same thing if they died of the bullets.
I posted what I did for two things.
1: The possibility of death from gunshot does not make every discharge of a firearm attempted murder
and 2: People die from gunshot wounds a whole hell of a lot less than the media likes to claim.
I'm not saying that it's a wonderful thing to shoot people, or that it's fun, or that it's anything other than something you only do when the situation is serious and you have reason to believe your life on the line.
Wat I am saying is that a gun is not a "magic death machine." This idea that you see on TV that shooting people once will always kill them dead forever is not accurate.
A gun is an object usually made of steel, with the designed intention of firing a projectile to strike a target at high speeds, nothing more, nothing less. People are acting on some very wild misapprehensions on what a gun is for and what happens when the trigger is squeezed. I'm just trying in my own odd way to clear some of them up.
I'm deadly serious. There is such a thing as shooting to stop. If you don't believe me, go get trained in handgun safety and report back.
Most of the time when someone is shot in self defense, the goal of the shooter is not to kill them. It's to stop the attack. If they die of the wound, that's just tough. But then, I'd say the same thing if they died of the bullets.
If they die of the wound, they died of the bullets. Full stop. Any argument to the contrary is just asinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
I posted what I did for two things.
1: The possibility of death from gunshot does not make every discharge of a firearm attempted murder
and 2: People die from gunshot wounds a whole hell of a lot less than the media likes to claim.
I don't disagree with 1. Define "the media" for two. Are we talking TV shows/movies or news reports? Cause in the former, I'd say they actually claim it happens much less than in reality, and in the latter, I'd say they don't claim anything, they just report. The fact that most news stories relating to guns being fired result in people dead is more a statement about what news stories sell than any active attempt at portraying guns as normally fatal when shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
I'm not saying that it's a wonderful thing to shoot people, or that it's fun, or that it's anything other than something you only do when the situation is serious and you have reason to believe your life on the line.
Wat I am saying is that a gun is not a "magic death machine." This idea that you see on TV that shooting people once will always kill them dead forever is not accurate.
Guns are designed to hurt, though. You can't say that 100% of people who are shot aren't hurt, cause that's just dumb.
And again, what's on "TV" that suggests that "shooting people once will always kill them"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
A gun is an object usually made of steel, with the designed intention of firing a projectile to strike a target at high speeds, nothing more, nothing less. People are acting on some very wild misapprehensions on what a gun is for and what happens when the trigger is squeezed. I'm just trying in my own odd way to clear some of them up.
You can still argue what the most appropriate use of that designed intention is, and not many would deny that at or near the top is "kill an animal". Maybe right next to "shoot my neighbour's antique cans".
You can still argue what the most appropriate use of that designed intention is, and not many would deny that at or near the top is "kill an animal". Maybe right next to "shoot my neighbour's antique cans".
Ehh, I'd clarify that as "put a bullet in an animal." Because frankly, the "kill" part is more of a possibility than a certainty. That's been my whole point.
And the reason I differentiate straight up bullet kills with "died of the wound/died of shock" situations is because with the latter, it's frequently possible to save the life of the wounded, and in fact, often happens.
It changes the tenor of certain parts of the argument, especially in court, since at the very least it does bring up the question of the response of the shooter, which can range from "call an ambulance to take the attacker to the hospital and report the incident immediately to the police themselves" to "put another bullet in and walk away." And if it's the latter, that really hurts a self defense plea.
What happened to common sense? If I don't want to get shot then I don't break into people's houses. It's a simple concept. I have no sympathy for stupid people who die in these kinds of situations. You as the thief put yourself in that situation and thus you as the thief have to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
speaking of common sense, how about some common sense like: committing a crime does not mean you automatically forfeit your right to be alive. or for the homeowner who has grabbed his loaded gun and is pointing it at a burglar whose hands are full of stereo equipment, maybe that person can exercise some common sense and realize that he quite clearly has the upper hand and does not need to shoot the burglar.
automatically assuming that a person in your house constitutes an immediate threat to your life and must be stopped with a firearm - especially given the statistics on burglary and violent crime - is pretty much the opposite of common sense.
