BangWhizzClack wrote:A great read that I found through a discussion with a Russian. https://theconversation.com/ancient-gre ... rchy-60277
cz515 wrote:Sarcastic content follows
Everyone who talks about home intruders and ability to shoot. Why do you need a gun to feel secure? do you live in a ghetto? Ffs have you such a small appendage that you need a big metal object under your pillow to feel safe?
Ok here is the fact, how many times have you heard of break n entry on news in aus. How many times from that the occupants were safe the next day... cuz the slept through?
How light sleeper are you, and how dumb do you think a guy coming to steal your car keys etc, will he goto kitchen smash up the pots and pans to first wake you up, so that you can fetch the firearm stored under your bed and allow you to shoot him?
The reality is they will likely come armed and shot you first before you become a problem...or just use your own firearm against you. So a burglary suddenly becomes a homicide.
In America how many mass shootings, home invasions have actuality been stopped by these tiny dk ppl with their 20" revolvers that they carrying on person every year. The fact is every day they have multiple multi fatalities all over the country (including state that allow concealed carry rules)
Then you compare to countries like Australia, NZ, UK most European countries, they have little access to firearms.... less crime and less deaths per 100,000 people and that is an undeniable fact.
DaveZ wrote:
Would I use a firearm in self defence? Probably not. Would I choose to remove myself from the situation and rebuild after the fact? Most likely. But the fact that I don't have a choice in the matter and the criminal seems to have far more rights in the situation than I do is what gets to me and many others.
As the good Dr said, "Why is it so?"
Larry wrote:How can it be claimed a robust democracy when one of the major parties main strategy is voter suppression.
DaveZ wrote:Trespassers with ill intent should leave all their rights at the front gate as far as I'm concerned.
bigrich wrote:DaveZ wrote:
Would I use a firearm in self defence? Probably not. Would I choose to remove myself from the situation and rebuild after the fact? Most likely. But the fact that I don't have a choice in the matter and the criminal seems to have far more rights in the situation than I do is what gets to me and many others.
As the good Dr said, "Why is it so?"
yeah dave , the rights of criminals over the rights of people to defend themselves is not right . "reasonable force" is another "grey" area of the law
some independant politicians were looking to push for castle law in this country . unfortunately both major parties didn't want to support it
bah! wrote:Larry wrote:How can it be claimed a robust democracy when one of the major parties main strategy is voter suppression.
Yeah I don't know but the assertion is made further up the thread.
cz515 wrote:Sarcastic content follows
Everyone who talks about home intruders and ability to shoot. Why do you need a gun to feel secure? do you live in a ghetto? Ffs have you such a small appendage that you need a big metal object under your pillow to feel safe?
Ok here is the fact, how many times have you heard of break n entry on news in aus. How many times from that the occupants were safe the next day... cuz the slept through?
How light sleeper are you, and how dumb do you think a guy coming to steal your car keys etc, will he goto kitchen smash up the pots and pans to first wake you up, so that you can fetch the firearm stored under your bed and allow you to shoot him?
The reality is they will likely come armed and shot you first before you become a problem...or just use your own firearm against you. So a burglary suddenly becomes a homicide.
In America how many mass shootings, home invasions have actuality been stopped by these tiny dk ppl with their 20" revolvers that they carrying on person every year. The fact is every day they have multiple multi fatalities all over the country (including state that allow concealed carry rules)
Then you compare to countries like Australia, NZ, UK most European countries, they have little access to firearms.... less crime and less deaths per 100,000 people and that is an undeniable fact.
boingk wrote:DaveZ wrote:Trespassers with ill intent should leave all their rights at the front gate as far as I'm concerned.
Couldn't agree more. They call that the 'Castle Defence' in the US. Very reasonable as far as I'm concerned - someon wants in (or is in) with ill intent and you don't want them to be? Game on.
- boingk
DaveZ wrote: So focussed on "you don't need that because most people survive anyway" and "it wouldn't do you any good because blah blah" and "you should just run away from the problem". Never much of a mention about why the people who are forcing their way into your property with bad intentions even have any rights at all.
wanneroo wrote:In my state the law assumes if someone is making forced entry into your home, they are there to commit a violent felony and you can respond in kind with force sufficient to stop the threat.
In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
cleger wrote:wanneroo wrote:In my state the law assumes if someone is making forced entry into your home, they are there to commit a violent felony and you can respond in kind with force sufficient to stop the threat.
My state:
Massachusetts General Laws, Part IV, Title II, Chapter 278, Section 8AIn the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
https://malegislature.gov/laws/generall ... /section8a
straightshooter wrote:bigrich wrote:DaveZ wrote:
Would I use a firearm in self defence? Probably not. Would I choose to remove myself from the situation and rebuild after the fact? Most likely. But the fact that I don't have a choice in the matter and the criminal seems to have far more rights in the situation than I do is what gets to me and many others.
As the good Dr said, "Why is it so?"
yeah dave , the rights of criminals over the rights of people to defend themselves is not right . "reasonable force" is another "grey" area of the law
some independant politicians were looking to push for castle law in this country . unfortunately both major parties didn't want to support it
Rights? What rights and where are they enshrined?
The situation you describe is a moment in time where the perpetrator has agency just as the recipient of the perpetrator's actions also has agency albeit limited by or dictated by the perpetrator's actions.
The degree to which any of those actions by either individual are offences depend on the current interpretation of law.
We live in a state operating in accordance with a Hobbesian philosophic structure. That is all individuals cede all natural rights to a sovereign in return for the security and personal safety offered by that sovereign, irrespective of whether any individual likes it or not.
Over time that sovereign has morphed from an individual person and his/her whims into a varying agglomeration of political elite satisfying their assorted predilections.
From time to time the general population are placated with the delusion that they have some sort of role in the selection of certain popular overt elements of that political elite.
The perception of the nature of the putative democracy we live in is in reality an artefact of the indoctrinated imagination of each individual in our society.
bigrich wrote:yep , well that's great
unfortunately i don't live in america , in australia i would be charged with a offence and lose my firearms license . i don't think it's right , but it's the rule of law where i live .
Larry wrote:Our Laws allow for us to defend ourselves and use reasonable force to do so. To use a firearm however would be unusual given that the majority of the time that they are locked away and with ammunition stored in another locked container in a different room. If you have 10 minutes to arm yourself then the law would argue that there were other options that could have been taken.
The BS about not having the right to own a gun is just that BS. If you have a firearms license then you have a right to own a gun and use it within the laws.
womble wrote:This one was caught on cctv in Miami Florida https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z4IuxAqpE
cz515 wrote:You all do realise you are taking about killing a person, sure right now you can easily justify and maybe in the heart of the moment, but then afterwards what about PTSD, and don't say it's not gona happen, every year hundreds of men (farmers) commit suicide in Australia because depression is real. Ask any soldier who has killed an enemy combatant, most would have Austin's of PTSD.
They do "active shooter drills" in American schools, while some people including the companies that are making $$$ doing them say they are good, but there are many cases where students are presenting with symptoms of PTSD same as those who have witnessed an actual event.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... is/580426/
So how wonderful that in a free country the model of Western prosperity, school scolded as young as primary school have to think there could be a mass shooting event. Frack I have been in a few third world countries, that is something that most kids never have thought about, let alone experienced.
So I am honestly glad that numpties do not run around carrying guns in public in Australia. And the most primary school children will have to worry about is what snack they having for lunch or recess
cz515 wrote:In America how many mass shootings, home invasions have actuality been stopped by these tiny dk ppl with their 20" revolvers that they carrying on person every year. The fact is every day they have multiple multi fatalities all over the country (including state that allow concealed carry rules)
ZaineB wrote:always so much 2A bashing on here, from non USA citizens, what does wanneroo and other USA citizens on here think?
cleger wrote:ZaineB wrote:always so much 2A bashing on here, from non USA citizens, what does wanneroo and other USA citizens on here think?
What do we think about what? The 2nd amendment in general?
on_one_wheel wrote:The media won't be reporting anything about good people with guns savings the day, that goes against their agenda.
Funny how these mass shooting are happening in gun free zones and cities with tough gun laws. .
Edit: I just googled "armed citizen saves the day"
There's no shortage of results