| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LazyMacro
976 Posts
On July 01 2011 00:33 KwarK wrote: There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units). You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:44 HellRoxYa wrote: More like: Makes burglars more likely to be violent while burglaring if caught. You should argue for the death penalty and not vigilanteism. That's in the most extreme of cases. Contrary to what prejudices you might have, people still generally value life in the US. They want to protect everything they've spent their entire life competing to build. Their possessions, their home, and most importantly, their family. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Gunther
Germany139 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:40 HellRoxYa wrote: Pretty much this. Thank you for a very good post. And how is that? If anything I'd say I'm a lot better than you because I value human life, both my own and others. If you really want to take it to that level... I value a law-abiding morally upright person's life over someone who has is commiting a crime which can potentially threaten the life of other's, even if they aren't armed it can be an emotially traumatizing experience, and completely shatter one's sense of security. Having lived in both the US and Europe for several years, I understand where you are coming from. I feel much safer living in Europe, crime rates are lower, and I don't worry about crime affecting me. It's different in some poverty and crime ridden areas of the US. If you lived there I'm fairly certain you'd change your mind. Anyway, I'm not advocating taking the criminal's life or that their life is worthless, but I find the idea that you should not defend yourself and your family quite ridiculous. | ||
|
XCetron
5226 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:47 LazyMacro wrote: You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means. He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain". | ||
|
randommuch
United States370 Posts
On July 01 2011 00:33 KwarK wrote: There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units). Around the palace all the police have MP5's and the red coats have an M4 variant, scary as fuck to have one of them eye balling you. Personally though, pulling a gun on a burglar is what i would hope to be enough to scare them shitless, not to sure about getting close enough to knife. Regardless though it's wrong to kill someone but I can see with enough information (like if once you pull the gun they charge you or something) then I can see it being ok to open fire. | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
| ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:48 randommuch wrote: Around the palace all the police have MP5's and the red coats have an M4 variant, scary as fuck to have one of them eye balling you. Personally though, pulling a gun on a burglar is what i would hope to be enough to scare them shitless, not to sure about getting close enough to knife. Regardless though it's wrong to kill someone but I can see with enough information (like if once you pull the gun they charge you or something) then I can see it being ok to open fire. Exactly. You don't purchase a weapon for home protection with the INTENT to shoot every burglar you come across. You want something that gives you the power to thwart them in a worst-case scenario, and the peace of mind to know that if they escalate it, you have the right to defend your family without getting thrown in jail for it. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:48 Gunther wrote: I value a law-abiding morally upright person's life over someone who has is commiting a crime which can potentially threaten the life of other's, even if they aren't armed it can be an emotially traumatizing experience, and completely shatter one's sense of security. Having lived in both the US and Europe for several years, I understand where you are coming from. I feel much safer living in Europe, crime rates are lower, and I don't worry about crime affecting me. It's different in some poverty and crime ridden areas of the US. If you lived there I'm fairly certain you'd change your mind. Anyway, I'm not advocating taking the criminal's life or that their life is worthless, but I find the idea that you should not defend yourself and your family quite ridiculous. I never said anything about not defending yourself or your family. You're already allowed to do that (here)... should they try to assault you. Besides that, though, it doesn't matter if it's a traumatizing experience or not. I'm not arguing for the legality of burglary, but it's also already illegal. But I'll be leaving the punishment up to the police and judicial system and not myself and any weapon I might possess. | ||
|
Animortis
United States8 Posts
For example, most states have what's called the Castle doctrine. That means that courts and the law go with the saying, "A man's home is his castle," and therefore a homeowner or resident has a right to protect him or herself through any means necessary. This includes the use of violence in places where an individual can expect to be safe from violence but is being attacked violently. The reasoning behind this is that in one's home, one can expect safety and if that safety is threatened then the individual has a right to protect himself and that a victim cannot read the mind of the intruder for their intentions. Violence is the only qualifier for violence. Other states expand this law outside the home into the public space. Some states often have a "duty-to-retreat" clause that says that a home's residents cannot use deadly force unless they've gotten as far away from the danger as possible and the danger continues to approach them. They also have to give warning. New York has this requirement. What's funny is that these sorts of laws originate in England and that it sounds like these laws were in place before this announcement. Canada also seems to have Castle doctrine in common law but doesn't have it on the books anywhere so it gets fuzzy. | ||
|
Mackin
Ireland181 Posts
Proportionality is the most important factor here. If the burglar is just out to steal from your house they will be much less likely to want to rape their way through the place, so I would consider someone who shoots a robber dead a horrible deed. I wouldnt mind shooting them if only to maim them or disable them from hurting me/ my family but thats it. So many of the responses say "Oh shoot first, ask q later" and that really annoys me. If I seen a burglar with a weapon or if they seen me & were coming towards me I would think it OK to respond with force. If you really were in any threat im pretty sure you would know, and I mean if theyre anywhere near you it should be OK to do whatever, but like killing them would not be the first priority for me - knocking them out/disarming/disabling all seems fine. However; If they are running away with your valubles and you shoot them dead I would find you pretty insane, because thats just being way to trigger happy., although I understand people can and do react differently to these situations, so some leniancy would be understood. If you say you would shoot any intruder without question in any situation, you really make me worry about the human race, because that is just crazy. I can totally understand if you knocked them out to stop them, but murder is murder and I feel if you can so easily decide to kill anyone on sight you could be a very dangerous person. It really does depend on the situation. And I can see why more Americans seem to be more worried for their safety and would be more "jumpy/quick to react" than people in Europe or the UK as guns are legal and in much more widespread use. I doubt most burglars here would have guns whereas in the US I have heard many stories of their easy accesibility compared to here. Please dont flame me, its just my opinion that killing any intruder in any (must emphasise any) situation is wrong. You should think about what you would do if you knew the burglar wasnt a threat to your safety (and dont give me crap saying you can never know, because there are ALWAYS these possiblities) | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:06 Bibdy wrote: It's easy to sit on your pedestal when you've got lower crime rates compared to the US, but the danger there is you delude yourself into thinking that there is no crime at all. Everyone who becomes a victim of these incidents instantly changes their opinion on home protection the moment it happens. It continues to baffle me how human beings on different sides of a giant body of water seem to think they're different somehow. He did not say there is no crime, he said that people tend not to get shot or stabbed during them ? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Yes, people defending themselves are immune from prosecution and imprisonment. Christ. You may actually be a sociopath, in which case you don't actually care for the burglars life, you just wan't to see innocent people go to prison. Nope, people defending themselves are not immune from prosecution in any country. It is also not what you said previously. Your previous statement implied that just being concerned for your safety makes anything you do ok. Oh, continuing with namecalling, how fitting. EDIT:Also people killing others even during crimes on their property are not in general innocent by standards of most justice systems around the world. | ||
|
MagickMan
Australia498 Posts
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay. You best be trollin'! | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:47 LazyMacro wrote: You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means. Actually there is very few guns to be obtained through even illegal means as most of illegal guns are stolen legal guns. When there are none to steal, there are only the ones illegally imported, which is not that much. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On July 01 2011 02:35 Mackin wrote: Some of the people on this thread seem to open to shooting burglars. Sure if a criminal has broke into your house you should be able to defend yourself, but the fact that people are so easily ready to pull a gun on someone strikes me as worrying. Proportionality is the most important factor here. If the burglar is just out to steal from your house they will be much less likely to want to rape their way through the place, so I would consider someone who shoots a robber dead a horrible deed. I wouldnt mind shooting them if only to maim them or disable them from hurting me/ my family but thats it. So many of the responses say "Oh shoot first, ask q later" and that really annoys me. If I seen a burglar with a weapon or if they seen me & were coming towards me I would think it OK to respond with force. If you really were in any threat im pretty sure you would know, and I mean if theyre anywhere near you it should be OK to do whatever, but like killing them would not be the first priority for me - knocking them out/disarming/disabling all seems fine. However; If they are running away with your valubles and you shoot them dead I would find you pretty insane, because thats just being way to trigger happy., although I understand people can and do react differently to these situations, so some leniancy would be understood. If you say you would shoot any intruder without question in any situation, you really make me worry about the human race, because that is just crazy. I can totally understand if you knocked them out to stop them, but murder is murder and I feel if you can so easily decide to kill anyone on sight you could be a very dangerous person. It really does depend on the situation. And I can see why more Americans seem to be more worried for their safety and would be more "jumpy/quick to react" than people in Europe or the UK as guns are legal and in much more widespread use. I doubt most burglars here would have guns whereas in the US I have heard many stories of their easy accesibility compared to here. Please dont flame me, its just my opinion that killing any intruder in any (must emphasise any) situation is wrong. You should think about what you would do if you knew the burglar wasnt a threat to your safety (and dont give me crap saying you can never know, because there are ALWAYS these possiblities) If someone was running away with your life savings, Your blood and sweat for years on end I think I should be able to put an arrow in him to retain my valuables. (I don't own a gun, but I will not hesitate to put an arrow in them if my posessions are threatened) | ||
|
Stress
United States980 Posts
On June 30 2011 12:05 coZen wrote: no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident! Not true. Each state is different. Texas is the most lenient of them all. You can shoot someone for being on your property uninvited if you wish too. Here in Tennessee, I have to feel that my life/someone elses life is in danger of harm or death, on my property of course. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:51 MangoTango wrote: I thought this was already legal? Castle doctrine? It is, its just a clarification. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:13 furymonkey wrote: Alot of double standards here. It seems some people would love to punish burglar by death, yet people cry about when police used excessive force when dealing with criminal. This is about self defense, not punishment. There's no double standard as self defense and limits on police authority are both consistent with the concept of individual rights. | ||
|
LazyMacro
976 Posts
On July 01 2011 01:48 XCetron wrote: He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain". Probably. I've actually met people, however, that think that gun control means guns simply cease to exist. T_T On July 01 2011 03:16 mcc wrote: Actually there is very few guns to be obtained through even illegal means as most of illegal guns are stolen legal guns. When there are none to steal, there are only the ones illegally imported, which is not that much. And when there are none left to steal there are none left for the law abiding to use in defense against the deviant.  | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Stormgate  47539Bisu 4070Shuttle 2379Mini 937Soulkey  555ggaemo 425Snow 327ZerO 276Soma 228sSak  175[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns5115 hiko873 Beastyqt530 Hui .410 crisheroes393 KnowMe342 RotterdaM279 B2W.Neo253 DeMusliM247 Fuzer  233ArmadaUGS104 QueenE47 Trikslyr33 ZerO(Twitch)17 |
|
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
DaveTesta Events
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
