The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

In one where she clearly killed somebody on the street. So your argument is that it clears the affirmative defense on its face, not that the burden of proof is different?

I have no real problem with the self defense shooting in the article. I'm speaking more generally

 

[Farm Boy]

The burden of evidence for self defense is still significantly lower than the burden to criminally convict the assaulter

I would probably change that, had I my druthers.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In Canada, we don't allow violence to protect property.

How can you protect your property then? If someone breaks into your house and starts stealing all your stuff, and they don't respond to your verbal requests to stop, do you just have to stand and watch?

 

[Socrates99]

How can you protect your property then? If someone breaks into your house and starts stealing all your stuff, and they don't respond to your verbal requests to stop, do you just have to stand and watch?

Call the cops, then make a claim against your homeowners insurance. If it's not life threatening theres no reason to make it life threatening. How do you know the intruder isn't armed and better with his weapon than you are?

 

[Commodore]

Call the cops

Remember: when you only have seconds to spare, the cops are just minutes away.

EDIT: More seriously: So your suggestion is to just roll over and be a victim? No thanks. I'll risk the potential shootout with the intruder.

 

[El_Machinae]

I really like that tagline. It is extremely clever meme crafting

How can you protect your property then? If someone breaks into your house and starts stealing all your stuff, and they don't respond to your verbal requests to stop, do you just have to stand and watch?

Inside your house, you're allowed to use minimum reasonable force to get someone to leave. This would include retrieving your firearm, threatening, and then shooting if required. Using a gun in home defense is perfectly possible, the main impediment is that our storage requirements require it to be a fairly unlikely event.

Compare that to stealing your car, where you become the witness. Technically, you can get in trouble for just assaulting someone. But usually the law only gets involved if you commit aggravated assault. Shoving someone away from your car will probably not trigger any type of response. Stabbing someone trying to get into your car will hopefully generate the response from the crown

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If she empties her mag into the first person who tries to mug her, isn't she leaving herself open to any further muggers on her way home? Maybe an ammo belt is in order too.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Call the cops, then make a claim against your homeowners insurance. If it's not life threatening theres no reason to make it life threatening. How do you know the intruder isn't armed and better with his weapon than you are?

Hmm. It sounds reasonable, but you're still asking for someone to just stand there watching someone take all their belongings while they wait for the police to show up. Which I don't think is reasonable. Also, what if the first thing they take is your phone?

 

[El_Machinae]

You're still confusing the home for the property within it. We allow violence to protect the home in order to protect people's last place of safety, not to protect the materials within. The television is protected as a consequence of protecting the family, not because it deserves violent protection on its own

EDIT: More seriously: So your suggestion is to just roll over and be a victim? No thanks. I'll risk the potential shootout with the intruder.

In home defense, I most commonly see the recommendation that you secure your family and retreat to safety. You're legally allowed to confront the intruder, but I think it's damn stupid. That's what homeowner's insurance is for.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What if you're not insured? What if you own things that are more precious to you than their monetary value?

 

[El_Machinae]

What if you're not insured? What if you own things that are more precious to you than their monetary value?

Sure. But if your family cannot afford insurance, then I guess they probably can't afford you being maimed

And if you value Grandma's ashes more than your future, go for it. I'm speaking generally

 

[EgonSpengler]

Nope. Most gun owners aren't violent at all when it comes to dealing with other law-abiding citizens. If you and I were talking face to face, I wouldn't even consider any violent action against you no matter how angry you made me. Try to break into my house or try to harm me or my family and I wouldn't hesitate to gun you down. Most gun owners are only violent with violent people, like criminals. That's because those people are a threat and need to be dealt with before they cause any damage.

Who makes the decision that someone is a threat? We see incidents where people were clearly incapable of knowing whether they were in danger, who take it upon themselves to deploy lethal force. In some of those cases, but not all of them, those people were sent to jail (with the due process they denied their victims, I might add). Deciding who lives and dies is vigilantism (or "playing God" if you believe in God). Congress passed a law in the 19th century, because some guys in white hoods had taken it upon themselves to decide who was a criminal and needed to be hanged.

Markeis McGlockton was shot and killed defending his family. Some of the links you'll find on Google say that he was shot over a parking space, but that isn't exactly true. He was shot because he saw a stranger acting belligerently towards his girlfriend with their 5-year-old son nearby. So are you saying that you put yourself in McGlockton's position of protecting your family, and saying that Michael Drejka should be allowed to decide who to shoot and when, in the name of self-defense? That sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. Or are you saying that McGlockton - the victim - made a mistake and should've been carrying a gun and shot Drejka instead of merely shoving him?

I want an honest answer to this question: why do people with your political leanings always seem to stand up for criminals and never for their victims? I mean, it really bothers me that you think it's an acceptable risk to allow people to be robbed in the street.

Setting aside for a moment what you think my political leanings are, I stand up for victims quite often. I think I've mentioned McGlockton before in this very thread, but I'd have to go back and look. It bothers me that you think not wanting any Tom, Dick or Harry to decide to kill means allowing people to be robbed in the street. Are you just being hyperbolic, or do you genuinely not see any reasonable response to a purse-snatching short of unrestrained lethal force? In the case of this woman whose purse was taken, I wonder if simply driving away and calling the cops was an option. I also wonder if you believe in the philosophy of the punishment fitting the crime. Do you think McGlockton was stupid for merely shoving Drejka?

 

[rah]

I think I would roll over rather than risk a gun fire exchange in the house with my wife and/or daughter present. Walls don't necessarily stop bullets so it wouldn't be worth the risk. Belongings can be replaced. I'd rather be killed than have a stray round kill one of them.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This is not a thread for fantasising about killing people. Such talk is absolutely prohibited at CFC.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Commodore]

If she empties her mag into the first person who tries to mug her, isn't she leaving herself open to any further muggers on her way home? Maybe an ammo belt is in order too.

Well you should always have at least one spare magazine with you.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well you should always have at least one spare magazine with you.

What if you encounter 2 muggers on the way home...

 

[Commodore]

What if you encounter 2 muggers on the way home...

Then you just aren't meant to survive the night.

Or if you live in a neighborhood where getting mugged three times in a very short timespan is a realistic possibility, then you should probably roll with a full tactical vest with armor plates and a full combat load of ammo (210 rounds of rifle ammo for the US Army). You should probably also have a squad of at least four other similarly equipped people.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Okay it's starting to sound fun again now.

 

[El_Machinae]

I noticed that my bomb vest recommendation is not being remembered. Banks always get knocked over. And nobody knocks over old Tony when he's wearing a bomb vest

 

[Sommerswerd]

What if you encounter 2 muggers on the way home...

You should move out of that neighborhood.

or.. OR! consider taking a Doberman or Rockweller with you wherever you go. I've never heard a story of someone getting mugged while walking their Pitbull.