Intruder shot and killed!!!

[QUOTE="james28893"]

It's a big assumption that the intruder would kill you, he may just run away when he saw you or he may realise that he doesn't want to kill you and just shoot to wound or shoot near you. Not every criminal wants to be a murderer, not every criminal is willing to kill even if the alternative is jail.

LJS9502_basic

The fact that not all intruders will kill does not make you safe. You have no way to predict the outcome. Most home invaders are armed. It's been proven that a criminal that is armed will use their weapon when startled...or something out of the ordinary happens.

Your life may have little value to you...but most people place importance on their life, the lives of their family and will do what they need to survive.

Survival is a basic instinct.

Totally agree

The fact that not all intruders will kill does not make you safe. You have no way to predict the outcome. Most home invaders are armed. It's been proven that a criminal that is armed will use their weapon when startled...or something out of the ordinary happens.

Your life may have little value to you...but most people place importance on their life, the lives of their family and will do what they need to survive.

Survival is a basic instinct.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="james28893"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Doesn't the Bible say it's OK to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family?

GodLovesDead

It says...Thou shalt not steal;)

Relative morality ftw ;).

That's not in the least relative.:lol: It's cut and dried. Stealing is wrong. If you're so poor you don't have food...the government is there with assistance.

But as long as we're on the subject of relative morality....then one has the right to shoot and kill an intruder. Period. /thread thanks to james.

Again you've partially mistaken what I've said, some things (in my books at least) should be allowed in certain situations, such as stealing and killing (though that should only be done if you or someone besides the attackerare guaranteed to be killed if action is not taken). Again in my opinion someone intruding on you're property is not a guarantee that you yourself are going to be killed, thus it would not be correct to kill the intruder.

Someone is imposing a risk on you through illegal action. Let's say someone was holding your child with a knife to his throat and was demanding all your money or something like that. You have a gun and you're 100% sure you can shoot the man. You wouldn't shoot the man just because you entirely sure if he's actually going to kill your child?

I would give him the money, always co-operate (police tell you that's what you should do). Though if that didn't work then yes I would shoot (again preferably not to kill) that threat is guarantee enough for me, he has a weapon (guaranteed) and is dangerous.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]Well since you dont live here and know what it is like then you can stop passing judgement on people that do what they do to protect them selves.blasto65_basic

Look first I dont even Owen a gun so dont pass judgement on me. Get of your pedestal that you have placed your self on and get real.

[QUOTE="flowdee79"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]In theory you guys may think this but I dont think any of you are unfortunate enough to be in that situation. In practice I bet most of you if not all will shoot the intruder.SolidSnake35

Agreed. I live in London and my house is very safe. No real trouble in the neighbourhood. A few muggings and very rarely a shooting, maybe once or twice in the 16 years I lived there.

So while we try to fix the problem we should disarm the innocent? That makes zero sense!

"Hey guys! We gotta do something about these violent criminals, we don't know what yet, but in the mean time how about you guys stop defending yourself! Sure it won't really effect the criminals, but the rest of the world says you shouldn't have them. What? You won't give them up? Ok...we'll have to use force. You are now all criminals and we will use force if necessary!"

Next thing you know you have riots and gun smuggling, even more overcrowding in prisons, endangered police officers bending the law more often and adding to an already dangerous job, and innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.

How is this the right move for americans to take?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The fact that not all intruders will kill does not make you safe. You have no way to predict the outcome. Most home invaders are armed. It's been proven that a criminal that is armed will use their weapon when startled...or something out of the ordinary happens.

Your life may have little value to you...but most people place importance on their life, the lives of their family and will do what they need to survive.

Survival is a basic instinct.Jandurin

Really? Which civilization survived without killing?

[QUOTE="james28893"]

It's a big assumption that the intruder would kill you, he may just run away when he saw you or he may realise that he doesn't want to kill you and just shoot to wound or shoot near you. Not every criminal wants to be a murderer, not every criminal is willing to kill even if the alternative is jail.

LJS9502_basic

The fact that not all intruders will kill does not make you safe. You have no way to predict the outcome. Most home invaders are armed. It's been proven that a criminal that is armed will use their weapon when startled...or something out of the ordinary happens.

Your life may have little value to you...but most people place importance on their life, the lives of their family and will do what they need to survive.

Survival is a basic instinct.

I would try not to startle them, but again you're right that wouldn't necessarily work, but I still wouldn't shoot to kill under those circumstances. And of course my life holds value to me LJ I'm not that depressed :P.

Really? Which civilization survived without killing?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? Which civilization survived without killing?Jandurin

So you made a pointless comment?;)

So while we try to fix the problem we should disarm the innocent? That makes zero sense! effthat

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? Which civilization survived without killing?LJS9502_basic

So you made a pointless comment?;)

He means that killing is no longer necessary to survive. Unless of course, you don't think the US is any more civilized than nations that existed many years before.SolidSnake35

That's not what he said. Anyway...there has yet to be any civilization that has not used force. Period. So his point....if any...was moot.

Second, you are blowing the gun issue out of proportion to what actually exists here.

[QUOTE="effthat"]So while we try to fix the problem we should disarm the innocent? That makes zero sense! SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="effthat"]So while we try to fix the problem we should disarm the innocent? That makes zero sense! SolidSnake35

Wow you must have one big soft cushion on that pedestal that you judged the world from

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] He means that killing is no longer necessary to survive. Unless of course, you don't think the US is any more civilized than nations that existed many years before.LJS9502_basic

That's not what he said. Anyway...there has yet to be any civilization that has not used force. Period. So his point....if any...was moot.

Second, you are blowing the gun issue out of proportion to what actually exists here.

Liechtenstein?

That's not what he said. Anyway...there has yet to be any civilization that has not used force. Period. So his point....if any...was moot.LJS9502_basic

A "civilization" is different than an "individual".

The point of living within a civilization is so you don't have to fight your neighbor to keep your stuff.

I understand that's not how teh real life works, but I still think one should attempt to live as if things were ideal, and not shoot first, ask questions later.

Wow you must have one big soft cushion on that pedestal that you judged the world fromblasto65_basic

Second, you are blowing the gun issue out of proportion to what actually exists here.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's not what he said. Anyway...there has yet to be any civilization that has not used force. Period. So his point....if any...was moot.Jandurin

A "civilization" is different than an "individual".

The point of living within a civilization is so you don't have to fight your neighbor to keep your stuff.

I understand that's not how teh real life works, but I still think one should attempt to live as if things were ideal, and not shoot first, ask questions later.

And that is the way most people try and live but there comes a time when you need to make a quick choice and should not be looked down on for that choice.

Liechtenstein?

james28893

Not a peaceful utopia if that is what you mean.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's not what he said. Anyway...there has yet to be any civilization that has not used force. Period. So his point....if any...was moot.Jandurin

A "civilization" is different than an "individual".

The point of living within a civilization is so you don't have to fight your neighbor to keep your stuff.

I understand that's not how teh real life works, but I still think one should attempt to live as if things were ideal, and not shoot first, ask questions later.

And? My point stands. No civilization has survived without violence, war, killing.

[QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]Wow you must have one big soft cushion on that pedestal that you judged the world fromSolidSnake35

Second, you are blowing the gun issue out of proportion to what actually exists here.LJS9502_basic

See another thing wrong with the UK no guns and you drink Tea......... Just kidding

[QUOTE="effthat"]So while we try to fix the problem we should disarm the innocent? That makes zero sense! SolidSnake35

That's a ridiculous claim. There is no way for you to link gun control, define what "effectively" means, and then prove that this "effective" gun control has anything to do with the crime rate. You still think that the problem is the guns and not the criminals. The problem is the criminals and no country is without them. Is it possible that the economic history has anything to do with this crime rate? How many of the 10 richest people in the world live in America? Is there any reason to think that crime is more concentrated around value? NO OF COURSE NOT! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT CRIME IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO GUNS! :roll:

What he did was wrong. If you have to shoot, shoot to wound.james28893

This isn't ****ing Hollywood dude.

What, and do you think that the police should try to shoot the guns out of criminals' hands like in the cartoons?

If you EVER have to fire a weapon, you aim center mass with the intent to kill. Otherwise, you have no business owning a gun, and you definitely have no business using one.

Sure, the homeowner is justified. Somebody broke into his house. Whether he was armed or not is irrelevant. If somebody shows enough disregard for the law to break and enter then perhaps they will also show disregard when it comes to physically hurting me or attempting to do so.

In my state there is a law known as the 'Make my day law'. Essentially, if somebody is in your house and they are trespassing (i.e. breaking and entering) you have the full right to kill them with no repurcussions. I'm all for it.

If somebody breaks into my house they are going to get a belly full of 00. And if they are trying to run out the door when they see me coming they'll get it in the back. I'm sure I would sleep better at night knowing there is one less thief in the world.

As you can tell I detest thievery and my privacy is very dear to me.

The ONLY thing wrong with the homeowners actions was that he shot the guy when he wasn't even in the house.

As mentioned before, he could have made his presence with his gun known and possibly scared the guy off. With his gun already drawn if that guy had made a move for anything the owner could easily shoot him.

That being said, I am not sure if this is good enough reason to prosecute the man. After all, if someones trying to break in and you have no idea if they are armed or not, I think it is fair to say shooting out of fear is quite the possibility.

Oh and LOL at the idiots trying to turn this into a gun control thread. Yes, you countries who have banned guns have done so well as to leave your law-abiding citizens defenseless as gun crimes in your countries are going down whereas in places like Detroit we have gun crimes declining.

Banning guns is quite possibly one of the DUMBEST things we could do. Do you really think most criminals go around using legal firearms that could be traced back to them? No.

Thechaninator

Supposedly we just have to ask the criminals nicely and they'll turn all their guns in.

Hey, it worked in the UK, right?

[QUOTE="james28893"]What he did was wrong. If you have to shoot, shoot to wound.MrGeezer

This isn't ****ing Hollywood dude.

What, and do you think that the police should try to shoot the guns out of criminals' hands like in the cartoons?

If you EVER have to fire a weapon, you aim center mass with the intent to kill. Otherwise, you have no business owning a gun, and you definitely have no business using one.

Yes because wounding= shooting the gun and breaking it. Anyway, shooting centre mass still doesn't mean you have to shoot upper torso. Or the head for that matter like several members of GS say they would.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="effthat"]So while we try to fix the problem we should disarm the innocent? That makes zero sense! effthat

That's a ridiculous claim. There is no way for you to link gun control, define what "effectively" means, and then prove that this "effective" gun control has anything to do with the crime rate. You still think that the problem is the guns and not the criminals. The problem is the criminals and no country is without them. Is it possible that the economic history has anything to do with this crime rate? How many of the 10 richest people in the world live in America? Is there any reason to think that crime is more concentrated around value? NO OF COURSE NOT! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT CRIME IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO GUNS! :roll:

dire state of lawlessness.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's not what he said. Anyway...there has yet to be any civilization that has not used force. Period. So his point....if any...was moot.LJS9502_basic

A "civilization" is different than an "individual".

The point of living within a civilization is so you don't have to fight your neighbor to keep your stuff.

I understand that's not how teh real life works, but I still think one should attempt to live as if things were ideal, and not shoot first, ask questions later.

And? My point stands. No civilization has survived without violence, war, killing.

I think Liechtenstein might have, their biggest export is dentures I can't see them being violent.

because of the dire state of lawlessness.SolidSnake35

Dude...there is no dire state of lawlessness.:|

I think Liechtenstein might have, their biggest export is dentures I can't see them being violent.

james28893

Link to zero crime rate in Liechtenstein then....

[QUOTE="james28893"]

I think Liechtenstein might have, their biggest export is dentures I can't see them being violent.

LJS9502_basic

Link to zero crime rate in Liechtenstein then....

I'll have a look.

The crime rate in Liechtenstein is low compared to other industrialized countries. An analysis was done using INTERPOL data for Liechtenstein. For purpose of comparison, data were drawn for the seven offenses used to compute the United States FBI's index of crime. Index offenses include murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. The combined total of these offenses constitutes the Index used for trend calculation purposes. Liechtenstein will be compared with Japan (country with a low crime rate) and USA (country with a high crime rate). There were no murders in Liechtenstein in year 2002. For rape, the rate in 2002 was 2.95 for Liechtenstein, compared with 1.78 for Japan and 32.05 for USA. For robbery, the rate in 2002 was 2.95 for Liechtenstein, 4.08 for Japan, and 144.92 for USA. For aggravated assault, the rate in 2002 was 2.95 for Liechtenstein, 23.78 for Japan, and 323.62 for USA. For burglary, the rate in 2002 was 256.64 for Liechtenstein, 233.60 for Japan, and 728.42 for USA. The rate for motor vehicle theft in 2002 was 11.80 for Liechtenstein, compared with 44.28 for Japan and 414.17 for USA. The rate for all index offenses combined was 277.29 for Liechtenstein, compared with 1709.88 for Japan and 4123.97 for USA. (Note that the rate for all index offenses combined does not include murder and larceny.)

From: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/liechtenstein.html

Not zero but pretty close.

[QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]Well since you dont live here and know what it is like then you can stop passing judgement on people that do what they do to protect them selves.SolidSnake35

"Excuse me, mr intruder. Could you stay there for a moment while I personally go out and single-handedly end crime in the USA?"

Liechtenstein's crime rate is in fact very low. These news broadcasts can explain it better than I. flowdee79

Damn you.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] because of the dire state of lawlessness.LJS9502_basic

Dude...there is no dire state of lawlessness.:|

It's self defense. Food_Nipple

Link?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]Well since you dont live here and know what it is like then you can stop passing judgement on people that do what they do to protect them selves.MrGeezer

"Excuse me, mr intruder. Could you stay there for a moment while I personally go out and single-handedly end crime in the USA?"

[QUOTE="flowdee79"]Liechtenstein's crime rate is in fact very low. These news broadcasts can explain it better than I. james28893

Damn you.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="james28893"]What he did was wrong. If you have to shoot, shoot to wound.james28893

This isn't ****ing Hollywood dude.

What, and do you think that the police should try to shoot the guns out of criminals' hands like in the cartoons?

If you EVER have to fire a weapon, you aim center mass with the intent to kill. Otherwise, you have no business owning a gun, and you definitely have no business using one.

Yes because wounding= shooting the gun and breaking it. Anyway, shooting centre mass still doesn't mean you have to shoot upper torso. Or the head for that matter like several members of GS say they would.

You don't aim for the head either. The head is too small of a target.

You seem to be forgetting that wounded people CAN STILL SHOOT. But hey, if you don't mind dying, then go ahead and try to shoot the guy's thumbs off so that he can no longer use a gun.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]Well since you dont live here and know what it is like then you can stop passing judgement on people that do what they do to protect them selves.SolidSnake35

"Excuse me, mr intruder. Could you stay there for a moment while I personally go out and single-handedly end crime in the USA?"

Well, the next time an armed robber breaks into the USA's house, let me know about it.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] because of the dire state of lawlessness.LJS9502_basic

Dude...there is no dire state of lawlessness.:|

quote 4 troof

[QUOTE="james28893"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="james28893"]What he did was wrong. If you have to shoot, shoot to wound.MrGeezer

This isn't ****ing Hollywood dude.

What, and do you think that the police should try to shoot the guns out of criminals' hands like in the cartoons?

If you EVER have to fire a weapon, you aim center mass with the intent to kill. Otherwise, you have no business owning a gun, and you definitely have no business using one.

Yes because wounding= shooting the gun and breaking it. Anyway, shooting centre mass still doesn't mean you have to shoot upper torso. Or the head for that matter like several members of GS say they would.

You don't aim for the head either. The head is too small of a target.

You seem to be forgetting that wounded people CAN STILL SHOOT. But hey, if you don't mind dying, then go ahead and try to shoot the guy's thumbs off so that he can no longer use a gun.

Yeah, well many people here have said they would blow the intruder's ******* brains out. Yes wounded people can still shoot but again a shot to the stomach would almost certainly incapacitate them. I'm actually trained to use firearms though (thanks to the RAF) so I'd probably be a better shot than your average housewife.

Couldn't he just have threatened him or something? I don't think killing the guy was the ideal way to go. Besides, if he really had to shoot him, he could popped one in his leg. Especially with a shotgun.Quadrifoglio

Apparently the intruder didn't even step into the house. But hey thats why you shouldnt be an intruder

According to the law you are allowed to protect your home and family. I don't feel the least bit sorry for the intruder.Godly_Cure

You can't. He's dead :D

Yeah, well many people here have said they would blow the intruder's ******* brains out. Yes wounded people can still shoot but again a shot to the stomach would almost certainly incapacitate them. I'm actually trained to use firearms though (thanks to the RAF) so I'd probably be a better shot than your average housewife.

james28893

You aim center mass...not the head.

[QUOTE="james28893"]

Yeah, well many people here have said they would blow the intruder's ******* brains out. Yes wounded people can still shoot but again a shot to the stomach would almost certainly incapacitate them. I'm actually trained to use firearms though (thanks to the RAF) so I'd probably be a better shot than your average housewife.

LJS9502_basic

You aim center mass...not the head.

I know that. Other's on here though have said they'd go for the head.