I did mention the pun in my original post :$

Quite alright, it's an emotive issue.

I would be interested as to what you meant by:
 
Though.

It's virtually pointless having a transatlantic discussion on gun law.  We don't want US gun law, the US doesn't want ours; but it's Ok, because we each have our own, not each other's.  If anybody is unhappy with their own country's gun law, they have every right to debate and to lobby their government to change their country's laws.  But they have fuck all right to lobby other country's governments in order to change laws that don't apply to them.

Tru dat. No point continuing!

So if someone breaks into my house and may have a weapon or evil intentions, you feel I am not allowed to shoot him/her?

Manthorp's money is no good at the Pub tonight, see me for the tab.

F all the guns. We n=may not agree, but when I come for a holiday over there we can solve it over a pint or three - even though my cousing says sevral of you are daft.

i get some of the excellent points that have been made and agree with many of them to a point, but it won't change a whit.

(how do quotes work now? As in clicking the link at the bottom of a post you want to quote. Or do they just... not)
 
Yeah, believe it or not, and I think this is where each side of the Atlantic blows each other's minds, for a lot of people here (and not all) they don't think "may have" is enough to justify an immediate death sentence. Self defence is OK though. So we had a famous case where a fleeing burglar was shot in the back by a farmer, and the farmer served some time in prison. That certainly caused some discussion. But home invaders have been killed by homeowners without penalty in other circumstances.

It is odd how they sometimes work. sometimes I forget the quote box and can just paste in highlighted text, sometimes I can't; other times I use the quote box and that red line with the return arrow on it won't let me do anything. I am at a loss. This time of course, everything worked properly.
 

Somebody breaks into my house, I am not waiting to see if he was just eager to present me with flowers. I am assuming he has bad intent by the simple fact he committed a B&E; mind you, at the least it is unlawful entry if a person enters my home without my knowledge or invite, even if the door is not locked or even open. At that point, I do not ask. If it was somebody I knew who needed to get in for any reason, they'd have called. Someone who comes into my house while I and my family sleep will get shot dead assuming I can get my firearm ready in time. If not, I have another suitable weapon ready.

If it sounds a bit whacko to you, just know that the city has been moving closer to the suburbs with every passing year. We have had people have their cars entered (my neighborhood and right next door) and personal effects stolen, homes entered via screens being cut with a knife and valuables stolen. There have also been prowlers in vans looking for young children and/or women.

I expect Santa will come down the chimney on Christmas Eve, so if I hear a noise in the basement that night I will know who it is and go back to sleep if I am not too excited. [g] Other than that, if someone enters my house unannounced and unexpected in the wee hours, I am going to fill my hand fast.

I have to say this though: My brother has a pistol, a semi auto. My brother is a bit of an odd duck and I do not agree with how he carries his gun. He has broken the law technically a couple of times when he has carried it (the way it was done) and he heard shit from me when he did it. I think he should get rid of the gun. Once he left the gun loaded in the glove box of my mom's car and he asked me to retrieve it for him. In my mind, the priviledge or owning and carrying a weapon is overshadowed by the great responsibility automatically to be assumed upon being granted that right. That means not "forgetting" a lethal weapon in someone else's car! also, I believe if one borrows another's car, that person should have a say so whether or not they even want the gun in their car.

I understand why he carries the gun though. when he lived in Philadelphia he actually had some guy try to climb in his front window at night. He lives in a not-too-nice neighborhood now in a semi-suburban environment. I never understood why he chose to live there. He carries the pistol for those reasons (or at least has the gun) and also years ago at work he was attacked by a co-worker who held a knife to his throat. Oddly, the employer never called the polic; I do not recall why my brother did not. In today's environment, a huge lawsuit would have been the result, the offending employee would have been fired and likely improsoned and my brother would have been using the suit money to find a newer, better job. The place has long since closed unrelated to that.

I'm glad you, nor anyone you know, has had such an experience. It's a horrifying thing I wouldn't wish on anyone.

We're in redneck/hillbilly country for the most part. Some things hunted here for eating are deer, rabbits, squirrels, bear, possum, groundhog, turkey, pheasant, and duck. A few have even been known to hunt rattlesnake. Some of what is hunted I'll eat. Some I don't like the taste of and won't. A good many fish as well. Whatever they can do to cut down on expenses and care for family.

This area's job situation has sucked for many years. I know. Some say move, but a lot of these people have family or financial obligations keeping them here, or they simply can't afford to get out. So they do what they can to survive and care for family. Right down to taking to the woods and land to feed them.

Sometimes the person being aimed at needs to be shot. That is why there is a justifiable homicide law.

For example, Joe comes home, finds some guy he doesn't know plowing the stuffing out of his wife and he doesn't take the time to figure out whether she is enjoying it or not. He assumes she is being raped, pulls out his pistol and shoots him. Make the scenario any way you want, but the end result is still likely the same.

Or Joe comes home, hears noise in house and gets his gun from the garage or shed, then surprises some guy rifling through his desk drawers with belongings strewn everywhere. Joe confronts the assumed burglar and he turns toward Joe with something in his hands and Joe shoots him.

See, you are assuming eberyone who gets shot is innocent. That is a rather naive view of the real world, don't you think? So do you think if someone shoots at me, even though I am not a policeman, I am killing someone who is "innocent"? Absurd, sir.

 

I think the big difference is that because we don't really have guns it is generally unlikely that anyone breaking and entering will have a gun, therefore I/we don't feel the need to own a gun in case these things happen.

In the US, most people can get hold of a gun so the person breaking and entering could quite easily have a gun. I guess I do understand why you would feel the need to own a gun under these circumstances.

I might be wrong and I don't know any statistics on this, but what sort of people rob houses? I kinda think it's more likely to be people who are in need, someone who needs money for drugs, can't feed their children because they're out of work. A lot of people need to be pretty desperate to rob someone's house. These people don't need killing, they need helping.

Actually, I think most statistics are somewhat bullshit. There are too many variables to consider especially in something controversial such as this, and even the shit I posted was something I found which applied to my argument. The problem with statistics in many cases is, If I am defending gun ownership I can be subjective and "find" information supporting my argument and the reverse is also true. Cherry-picked data. The crap I posted about knives was probably from some anti-knife zealot.

I can't really trust statistics from either side, to be fair. Figures lie and liars figure. Nobody is truly objectibive and that is what the whole argument/discussion is about.

Why aren't knives also mentioned by Freud (or maybe they were and I was nodding off during the lecture). I mean, they are male-shaped, aren't they? I never really thought of the gun as an extension of the penis so much as an extension of the hand or fist. I am not sexually aroused by guns. Other, kinky things perhaps, but that is fodder for another discussion and perhaps you are not keen to know. [G]

I wouldn't shoot the man.
  I wouldn't shoot the man.


If someone shoots at you, maybe (probably) it is justifiable. You then go down the messy route of shooting because you /think/ someone has a gun - then there's the excuse of shooting them to protect yourself in case they have a gun.

Not knowing what Skegness is, I am at a loss. So I don't necessarily want to carry a gun, so where does that leave me in your IQ scenario there, Carnac?

Yup I go along with what Ant is saying there. Threats to life are worth killing over sometimes - but simple burglary is not. Although actually when you talk of cars being entered and so on it seems like you'd lean towards burglary being worthy of the death sentence too. I'd see it as very annoying but ultimately just some possessions that can be replaced.

Of course I don't know how I'd react in the heat of the moment, I have thankfully never confronted someone in the act of breaking and entering my property. But not having a gun myself I'm actually glad I won't have to worry about that.

And I live in London which is plenty city! And where I lived in Leeds a lot of people were putting security grilles over ground floor windows and doors so not exactly nice either. 

What sort of people rob houses? They could be all sorts. They could be punk kids who have nothing better to do, or punk kids needing to support a drug habit. It could be some strung-out meth head with an unpredictable nature. It could be someone who has done nothing but crime all their lives. I am out of work and I have not had to rob anyone's house to feed my family.

Sorry, mate, but if someone breaks into my house I don't have time to play Dr, Phil or interview them. They are already a threat so they are going to get help, possibly permanent help. Help that means they need want no longer. I think you have an overly simplistic, idealistic view of crime and criminals. There are skinheads here, neo-nazis, whack jobs, malcontents and just some general jerk-offs running around. We have some arsehole up in the Poconos who killed one State Trooper and wounded another. Yeah, OK- he killed a police officer. So he needs to be shot, right?

Guess what? If he shows up at my house he will get shot by me no questions asked. I would probably get a commendation for it and of course it is an extreme example. You are approaching this as though in all cases the people being shot are general, all-around good people. In many or most cases, they are not.

Oscar Pistorious is likely to get away with manslaughter because of his celebrity, not because he is not guilty of killing his girlfriend. He is an example of taking the breaking and entering bit to an implausible extreme. I have followed a bit of that case and I really cannot see how he did that and thought there was a burglar. Nonsense.

A person does not have to have a gun to be a threat in someone's house. The delay in not taking someone else's life in a robbery situation may be the difference between your living or dying, or someone in your family living or dying. Say I find a guy in my house, confront him with a gun and he runs out of ny bedroom or living room and to my daughter, taking her as a hostage? I won't take that chance, especially with a dsperate person. Maybe they are desperate, maybe just dangerous. No percentage in it for me to find out; I'll be glad to be edified later.

Actually, I hope to never have to be in that situation. It would never be easy.

** LOL, stopping and entering is not a crime.  :-)

I didn't say I would shoot someone over my car being entered; you are putting words in my mouth or jumping to a conclusion. I did say breaking and entering my house.

Set up for tea, perhaps?
 

By then, it may be too late and the point is moot. The difference between you and me is, I am not going to wait. This is an age old argument, but it bears repeating for it is the absolute truth: If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

But this thread is derailed anyway. The thread title is Gun Laws. I have stated already that if the U.S. would simply follow and enforce the laws we already have, we would be in much better shape. We are on a side track of hypothetical situations that, though possible, are still hypothetical. No one actually knows what they will do in a given situation in the heat of the moment, and there are any number of scenarios that can involve guns, knives, baseball/cricket bats, heavy vases, bare hands, wine bottles, books, frying pans or other household items that can be used for killing in the heat of the moment. Every single item I mentioned has been used to kill. One woman in Texas fatally stabbed her boyfriend with a stilleto heel. Killer heels, mmmmmm!  :-P