Story, listen to the 911 call.
I've had to fire on an intruder before (I hit him but didn't kill him) and know the terror of a home invasion. This is why I want to beat people who tell ME I shouldn't have guns in MY house.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Story, listen to the 911 call.
I've had to fire on an intruder before (I hit him but didn't kill him) and know the terror of a home invasion. This is why I want to beat people who tell ME I shouldn't have guns in MY house.
Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?
I do believe in having a fire-arm in the house for protection. What I do NOT agree with is how easy guns are to get ahold of in this country and use. A childhood friend of mine was shoot in the face and killed not too long ago and her killer has all but gotten away with murder.
Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?
warbmxjohn
I would have but I didn't have a chance. My gun was upstairs, the phone downstairs, and the intruders came in from the downstairs. I didn't get to call until after I shot the guy.
As your link, obviously with children in the home you have to take saftey measures, just as you have to take saftey measures with lye, medicines and electrical dangers when a child is in the home.
I do believe in having a fire-arm in the house for protection. What I do NOT agree with is how easy guns are to get ahold of in this country and use. A childhood friend of mine was shoot in the face and killed not too long ago and her killer has all but gotten away with murder.
Amnesiac23
Would it make a difference if she were stabbed?
[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]
Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?
br0kenrabbit
I would have but I didn't have a chance. My gun was upstairs, the phone downstairs, and the intruders came in from the downstairs. I didn't get to call until after I shot the guy.
As your link, obviously with children in the home you have to take saftey measures, just as you have to take saftey measures with lye, medicines and electrical dangers when a child is in the home.
I was only talking about that call sorry if I offended you.. I understand if a person doesn't have time, and yes that is a terrifying situation. But my point is that one scenario does not definitively end the debate. There are many reasons for guns and against guns, it is a very complex subject. I am for guns in legal hands to protect homes, but not to the point of beating people that disagree. Both sides make valid points, and both sides make asinine points. You are right that gun control was more the case in the link I provided, but the point remains that some people should not be allowed guns. Like those who freaking forget they have one, and their kid uses it to shoot themselves.[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]
Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?
warbmxjohn
I would have but I didn't have a chance. My gun was upstairs, the phone downstairs, and the intruders came in from the downstairs. I didn't get to call until after I shot the guy.
As your link, obviously with children in the home you have to take saftey measures, just as you have to take saftey measures with lye, medicines and electrical dangers when a child is in the home.
I was only talking about that call sorry if I offended you.. I understand if a person doesn't have time, and yes that is a terrifying situation. But my point is that one scenario does not definitively end the debate. There are many reasons for guns and against guns, it is a very complex subject. I am for guns in legal hands to protect homes, but not to the point of beating people that disagree. Both sides make valid points, and both sides make asinine points. You are right that gun control was more the case in the link I provided, but the point remains that some people should not be allowed guns. Like those who freaking forget they have one, and their kid uses it to shoot themselves.I didn't take offense, but my first reaction was 911, my second was to shoot. I'm not trigger-happy, and I doubt most people are.
And the only people I want to beat are the ones who tell me I have no business owning a gun. I wonder where I would be today if I didn't have one, or if I would even be here, as the guy I shot in my home was armed with a shotgun (I had a 9mm).
I think the gun ownership issue is pretty much settled here in the US, the only issue is what kinds of guns to keep legal.
And you can't exactly tell who is going to forget what, though a gun is a pretty strange thing to forget.
pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.
All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...
in the UK we call that being off your trolley...
Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.
Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment
pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.
All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...
in the UK we call that being off your trolley...
Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.
Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment
seriousley
Anyone who enters my home through breaking-and-entering is likely to not come out alive. I don't care about their reasons, this is my personal space. If you invade it illegally, I WILL take action because I have to assume the worst. It's not like I'm going to interview the guy as he breaks into my house to see what his intentions are.
Remember, HE put himself in that situation and the home owners (and myself) were forced into it by HIS descision. Whatever consequences come of the homeowners defending themselves, the intruder brought upon himself.
And I'm aware of English law, and asinine legal rulings including that one guy being a 'danger to burglers', and find such an attitude shockingly naive.
Oh Boy. This is gonna 'troll' real fast methinks.
I believe in the right "to keep and bear arms" It was already decided as law in USA 240~ years ago. Without our squirrel rifles, the British Empire would still be America's governing body. I will go further by adding with the advent of Homeland Security today, and more Federal control trying to micromanage our personal lives, that the possesion of a gun by citizens may become more important. Thomas Jefferson worried that a big federal government would just become another monarchy. I do not posess my gun currently, having small children in my home. I will retrieve it when they leave, however.
The newest gun issue right now is actually the chokehold which anti-gun lobbyists are placing upon the aquisition of ammunition. If they can't disarm the population, they'll make getting bullets harder instead.The Obama administration is working toward a bill which classifies gun owners as right wing extremists in certain record keeping practices, also. Our Declaration of Independence includes this line:
"..That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.."
I continue to hold to my gun, because should my government get 'destructive' on my people, I will not yeild to them simply because they command it. You know that there isn't any government body that would ever disarm itself, anyway, and criminals can get guns withoutany lawful considerations. So hate me all you want for this-but keep in mind that you are allowed to have your opinions without government regulation still. With or without a gun.
I think as he was going to the phone and calling 911, the guy outside just looked like a drunk guy wandering around. But by the time he starting talking to the operator, the drunk guy was on his way to the door.Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?
warbmxjohn
pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.
All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...
in the UK we call that being off your trolley...
Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.
Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment
seriousley
Thank god I don't live in Britain in that case. Way to create laws that protect criminals and punish law abiding citizens merely trying to protect themselves. If someone enters my home intending to harm me or my family, I should be able to kill them with extreme prejudice and not think twice about it. They lost any right to life or limb the second they broke in.
I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.
I *think* I would rather take the 12 gauge slug I would be shooting at that point. The flare would sear into the persons flesh.. Ouch..I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.
Raikoh_
[QUOTE="Raikoh_"]I *think* I would rather take the 12 gauge slug I would be shooting at that point. The flare would sear into the persons flesh.. Ouch..I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.
warbmxjohn
It's the perfect way to teach pesky intruders a lesson.
I *think* I would rather take the 12 gauge slug I would be shooting at that point. The flare would sear into the persons flesh.. Ouch..[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Raikoh_"]
I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.
Raikoh_
It's the perfect way to teach pesky intruders a lesson.
No doubt there. Very educational.[QUOTE="Amnesiac23"]
I do believe in having a fire-arm in the house for protection. What I do NOT agree with is how easy guns are to get ahold of in this country and use. A childhood friend of mine was shoot in the face and killed not too long ago and her killer has all but gotten away with murder.
br0kenrabbit
Would it make a difference if she were stabbed?
While I'm not against the usage of guns by civilians in general, I find that these kinds of comparisons are preposterous. If using a knife to kill someone is just as easy, why do you still use a gun? :) The strawman that is constantly mentioned by the hypocritical gun owner against their prohibition is usually like this 'X kills; should X be outlawed too?' That is not the problematic factor that those who agree with anti-gun laws see. The problem is that guns kill *easily*.I would not be alive if I did not have a firearm.
when my place was broken into my weapon was not put together so I assembled and loaded it to defend against a knife wielding attacker.
I am not sad to say that I am here because he is not and if he had not attempted to kill me there would have been no incident.
In fact after a short investigation the police returned my firearm to me and congradulated my presence of mind.
My mother was also in the house and was lucky to escape. In fact this incident was duplicated on an old episode of "Cops" a few years ago.
I will not mention the city or department. Moved away from that place and am glad to be away from the "notoriety" even thought most was congradulations.
I'm just glad nobody has ever broken into my home when I was present... never know how messed up in the head the other person is. The thought he would kill me over goods is just so pathetic.
Yeah. The criminals will use guns whether or not they are legal, so how are we going to defend against them if we do not possess any?WelkabonzStun gun? :roll:
[QUOTE="Welkabonz"]Yeah. The criminals will use guns whether or not they are legal, so how are we going to defend against them if we do not possess any?clembo1990Stun gun? :roll: That is a gun is it not? Granted with the range and penetration of that thing you better hope you get lucky.
[QUOTE="clembo1990"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"]Yeah. The criminals will use guns whether or not they are legal, so how are we going to defend against them if we do not possess any?WelkabonzStun gun? :roll: That is a gun is it not? Granted with the range and penetration of that thing you better hope you get lucky. It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.
It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.clembo1990Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important?
[QUOTE="clembo1990"] It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.WelkabonzMurder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important? It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave?
K, so if someone comes in my house with a pistol, and the gun I own is in the room across the hall, I should sit in that room and let them kill me? ...I don't think so.pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.
All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...
in the UK we call that being off your trolley...
Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.
Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment
seriousley
[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="clembo1990"] It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.clembo1990Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important? It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave? If he came in my house un-armed, I would hold him up at gun point while someone else in my family called the police, if he was armed and he pointed his gun at me, I don't think I'd hesitate to end him right there.
[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="clembo1990"] It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.clembo1990Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important? It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave?
Why are you confined to either letting him go or shooting him on the spot?
It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave?[QUOTE="clembo1990"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important?Cherokee_Jack
Why are you confined to either letting him go or shooting him on the spot?
Why risk anything else?[QUOTE="seriousley"]
pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.
All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...
in the UK we call that being off your trolley...
Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.
Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment
AFraud
Thank god I don't live in Britain in that case. Way to create laws that protect criminals and punish law abiding citizens merely trying to protect themselves. If someone enters my home intending to harm me or my family, I should be able to kill them with extreme prejudice and not think twice about it. They lost any right to life or limb the second they broke in.
So someone deserves to be killed for trespassing/breaking and entry?[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]
[QUOTE="matenmoe"]The Obama administration is working toward a bill which classifies gun owners as right wing extremists in certain record keeping practices, also. matenmoe
I'd love for you to provide proof of that assertion.
I'll be waiting. :)
DHS DECLARES THAT SECOND AMENDMENT
SUPPORTERS ARE "RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS":
TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN REPORT!
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Did you know that your government considers you to be a "rightwing extremist?"
IT'S TRUE!
According to news reports, the Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," labeling citizens opposed to new firearms restrictions, returning veterans and conservatives as "rightwing extremists" and associating them with white supremacists and violent antigovernment groups.
You read that right -- it appears that the Obama Administration, and especially the DHS under Janet Napolitano, is trying to demonize political dissent. And it's no big surprise who's directly in their crosshairs: supporters of the Second Amendment, including veterans and gun owners.
Who is funding this kind of nonsense? Well, YOU are. Why would your government spend your money attacking YOU, instead of spending your money PROTECTING you?
This calls for grassroots action, on a HUGE scale!
TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
The report also says that Congressional debates about immigration and gun control make extremist groups suspicious and give them a rallying cry:
"It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists," the report said.
Why are they worried? Because since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons. And as far as the Obama administration is concerned, buying guns equals "weapons stockpiling," buying ammo equals "hoarding of ammunition," and expressing concern about Congress passing gun control legislation qualifies YOU as part of an "extremist group."
Therefore, you and I are now being viewed as dangerous rightwing extremists that law enforcement officials need to be watching out for!
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
This report was released "hot on the heels" of another (state) government agency report in February: the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this horrific "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members."
According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":
The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration
Well, there you have it! You see? You ARE a dangerous rightwing extremist!
As ridiculous as that report seems, it was distributed to law enforcement officials across the state of Missouri. And it wasn't until the state government was FLOODED with protests from patriotic Americans across the country, that they finally came out and denounced and retracted the MIAC document.
Now, it's happened again -- but this time, at the Federal level! Our own government is turning against us, and unless there is a HUGE outpouring of outrage from every part of this nation, it will just keep getting WORSE!
TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in BOTH the MIAC report AND the Homeland Security "assessment."
This shouldn't be too surprising: both of these reports are similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies, courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." MIAC is one of those Centers, sponsored by the DHS!
So now, even veterans are targets of our own government: The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."
PLEASE, don't think we're making a "big deal" out of nothing! Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban specifically told the press, "This is nothing unusual," and added that the Homeland Security Department did this "to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again."
The authors of this assessment are pushing an "Us against Them" philosophy. You and I are being marginalized -- labeled as fringe kooks, "rightwing extremists," so that it will be easier to violate our liberties and take away our right to keep and bear arms in the future.
The only thing that will put a STOP to this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to do anything. We either stop it NOW, or it will grow into an out-of-control monster that will monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country.
What if the intruder was your grandmother coming over to surprise you but too senile to realize what time it was? THEN WHAT!?!?I've had to fire on an intruder before (I hit him but didn't kill him) and know the terror of a home invasion. This is why I want to beat people who tell ME I shouldn't have guns in MY house.
br0kenrabbit
[QUOTE="AFraud"][QUOTE="seriousley"]
pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.
All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...
in the UK we call that being off your trolley...
Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.
Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment
Brainkiller05
Thank god I don't live in Britain in that case. Way to create laws that protect criminals and punish law abiding citizens merely trying to protect themselves. If someone enters my home intending to harm me or my family, I should be able to kill them with extreme prejudice and not think twice about it. They lost any right to life or limb the second they broke in.
So someone deserves to be killed for trespassing/breaking and entry?They DO NOT deserve to die for breaking and entering, but if they are a THREAT TO MY SAFETY, then shooting them becomes a possibility. If I have an intuder, my first thought isnt to kill him, its to get him OUT of my house and in the hands of the police. I confront him with the weapon and order him to remain there until the police arrive. If the guy resists, or tries to attack me, he gets a bullet. Not trying to be an ass here, but what is your alternative? What do you think about what happened in the incident the TC provided?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment