Is it time to arm ourselves with weapons?

seamus · 10-01-2013 11:48am

Wibbs wrote: »

and why was he terrified?

Because he'd been burgled a number of times before and feared for his property. Not for his life.

I call bollocks to your "it's only stuff to you" argument tbh Wibbs. Objectively, it's only stuff. In reality, it's only stuff. What importance the individual attaches to their stuff is irrelevant.

If I caught someone stealing my bike I would beat them to a bloody pulp, but I wholeheartedly accept that the legal system cannot nor should not account for my irrational sentimentality about what is a lump of steel, rubber and plastic, so I would receive a pretty harsh sentence.

I cannot see any logical reasoning behind the idea that someone's personal feelings about their inanimate possessions is somehow so worth protecting that they should be legally allowed take someone else's life for it.

laoch na mona · 10-01-2013 11:52am

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god... I love how the scumbag becomes the victim for the hand wringers.

seen how he was shot id say he came out the victim not saying he wasn't asking for trouble he was a scumbag but that dosen't mean he can be killed by those who feel they are better people and if someone robbing you justifies murder them give me bertie's address and Quinn's and Fitz's if i kill them its murder so is killing someone when they are no longer a threat to your safety

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 12:00pm

seamus wrote: »

Because he'd been burgled a number of times before and feared for his property. Not for his life.

I call bollocks to your "it's only stuff to you" argument tbh Wibbs. Objectively, it's only stuff. In reality, it's only stuff. What importance the individual attaches to their stuff is irrelevant.

If I caught someone stealing my bike I would beat them to a bloody pulp, but I wholeheartedly accept that the legal system cannot nor should not account for my irrational sentimentality about what is a lump of steel, rubber and plastic, so I would receive a pretty harsh sentence.

I cannot see any logical reasoning behind the idea that someone's personal feelings about their inanimate possessions is somehow so worth protecting that they should be legally allowed take someone else's life for it.

While it sounds awful what Nally went through, the Gardai should have done more or we should have better procedures in place to protect people in that situation.

Killing someone who is not a direct threat to you or your families life at that moment should not be a solution.

Nally was obviously afraid that the guy would come back and kill him but these things should be legislated for by the guards. I don't get this gung ho, every man for himself ideals a lot of blokes have.

gbee · 10-01-2013 12:05pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Nally was obviously afraid that the guy would come back and kill him but these things should be legislated for by the guards. I don't get this gung ho, every man for himself ideals a lot of blokes have.

I think you answered that yourself already. We all know what the Guards do. And with reports of squad cars out of petrol and officer told not to patrol, and with further cuts and career breaks and station closures, need I go on?

Lelantos · 10-01-2013 12:06pm

Boombastic wrote: »

You can do that at the moment if you know the wrong people, only difference is I will be armed and meet you with equal resistance. If I heard the window break down stairs and had a gun, I'd be taking pot shots at you from the landing/some other advantage position.

At the moment I am unarmed and at your mercy.

Another alternative to guns might be tasers

And in the ensuing gun battle your wife or kids get shot, we have 1 of the safest countries in the Western world to live in because we don't have guns in the home. Once you start arming people, gun deaths go up & that's not an option imo

Boombastic · 10-01-2013 12:09pm

Lelantos wrote: »

And in the ensuing gun battle your wife or kids get shot, we have 1 of the safest countries in the Western world to live in because we don't have guns in the home. Once you start arming people, gun deaths go up & that's not an option imo

We'll have a procedure in place before hand, just like we've prepared what we'll do in the event of a fire

Cora Mahoney · 10-01-2013 12:09pm

seamus wrote: »

Because he'd been burgled a number of times before and feared for his property. Not for his life.

I call bollocks to your "it's only stuff to you" argument tbh Wibbs. Objectively, it's only stuff. In reality, it's only stuff. What importance the individual attaches to their stuff is irrelevant.

If I caught someone stealing my bike I would beat them to a bloody pulp, but I wholeheartedly accept that the legal system cannot nor should not account for my irrational sentimentality about what is a lump of steel, rubber and plastic, so I would receive a pretty harsh sentence.

I cannot see any logical reasoning behind the idea that someone's personal feelings about their inanimate possessions is somehow so worth protecting that they should be legally allowed take someone else's life for it.

And suddenly YOU know the mind of a terrorized old man all on his own in the middle of nowhere? Frankly I am ashamed he had to endure the horrific existence he did for so long in a supposedly civilized country. I wish that bastard and any others of them that scare the ****e out of good people would be hung in the public square as used as pinatas for anyone passing by.

And as for you dismissing the value of people's security and peace of mind in their own homes: ferget it. Any loser who decides he wants to steal not only people's hard earned possessions, but their internal sense of safety in the world deserves all he/she gets, and more.

Now, OT but just two nights ago I happened to be awake very early due to my having the flu. I heard some strange noises outside my place, looked out, only to see two young bucks smashing the windows of cars all down my street, robbing them as they went. I went out after they had moved on a bit to see the damage:

5 cars with windows smashed in, 2 cars with their tires slashed!:mad:

I felt so sorry for all those people about to come out and start their day only to find this **** to welcome them. We are already living in a very precarious time with so many challenges weighing on people, incidents of simple robbery, as you view it, are not so innocent....it can push someone already barely hanging on right over the edge.

**they caught the little bastards, btw**

bodice ripper · 10-01-2013 12:12pm

Wow guys. I am an angry young woman who believes in the right to own guns, and i am vengeful as all hell

And even i think shooting an injured man in the back as he tries to escape is deplorable. A little alarmed by how many of you think such an act is to be applauded.

Porkchop McGee · 10-01-2013 12:13pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

you don't need a gun to defend yourself protecting you property can be done many ways a good guard dog proper locks and doors on sheds cameras a hurley you don't need a gun having one would mean criminals would have more guns

So what is your point? Are you saying it's ok if I beat the **** out of him with a hurley, just once I don't shoot him?

You don't know the intention of someone who breaks into your home and, personally, I don't believe the innocent party should have to wait to find out just what the scum has in mind for their family. Guns are not the answer, an efficient and funtioning judicial system is, but since we don't have one and are unlikely to get one since money is being purged out of law enforcement, surely a citizen has a right to defend themselves in as quick and efficient a way as possible?

Bruthal · 10-01-2013 12:13pm

Feelgood wrote: »

I am armed already, with my penis.

A dangerous weapon that, one wrong thought, even while asleep, and it can go off prematurely.

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 12:13pm

gbee wrote: »

I think you answered that yourself already. We all know what the Guards do. And with reports of squad cars out of petrol and officer told not to patrol, and with further cuts and career breaks and station closures, need I go on?

So then surely the answer is to have better procedures or support from the Guards? That's what they're there for. Handing people out guns and saying "look after yourself lads", is no solution.

Obviously if more people are armed then the burglars will tool up accordingly.

Wibbs · 10-01-2013 12:14pm

seamus wrote: »

Because he'd been burgled a number of times before and feared for his property. Not for his life.

He also feared for his life. Well you would do with some multiple convicted scumbag who liked slash hooks.

I call bollocks to your "it's only stuff to you" argument tbh Wibbs. Objectively, it's only stuff. In reality, it's only stuff. What importance the individual attaches to their stuff is irrelevant.

To you. At what point might stuff become relevant for you? Even the most sheldoncooperesque person attaches importance to stuff. It's a human thing. What about the sense of violation? Is that relevant for you? After all objectively someone has only taken stuff from another lump of stuff, their home.

laoch na mona wrote:

seen how he was shot id say he came out the victim not saying he wasn't asking for trouble he was a scumbag but that dosen't mean he can be killed by those who feel they are better people and if someone robbing you justifies murder them give me bertie's address and Quinn's and Fitz's if i kill them its murder so is killing someone when they are no longer a threat to your safety

Oh oh, here we go. If you can equate a bunch of NAMA types with a convicted dangerous felon with a slashhook I think your passport to the "land of rational thought" has been revoked, or your Looney Left card has been approved.

Cora Mahoney · 10-01-2013 12:15pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

Wow guys. I am an angry young woman who believes in the right to own guns, and i am vengeful as all hell

And even i think shooting an injured man in the back as he tries to escape is deplorable. A little alarmed by how many of you think such an act is to be applauded.

What floors me is how you can, in all honesty, characterize it like that. They terrorized him FOR YEARS. What part of that do you not understand?

jmayo · 10-01-2013 12:16pm

To most people in Mayo, and probably for that matter in rural Ireland, Nally is a hero who stood up to being harassed and terrorised by scumbags.

ward should have been in jail, but the Gardaí couldn't do their jobs and arrest him.
And even if they did, the fooking criminal excusers, like some of the posters here would be complaining about inequality, the inadequacies of the criminal justice system, how disadvantaged his life was, etc.

Well to all the ones here who squak on about Nally and that people have no right to protect themselves or their property maybe you would have a different opinion if you saw an elderly relative or neighbour living alone going to bed in fear every night.
And trust me that is what happens.

How would you like to be leaving an elderly relative or neighbours house and listening to them padlock themselves into their bedroom where they have a slasher under the bed for protection in case their nightmare comes through that night.
And the nearest Garda station with one car is 10/20 plus miles away.

The justice system and Gardaí failed people like Nally just as they have failed people like Eddie Fitzmaurice in Bellaghy/Charlestown
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-83-tied-and-left-to-die-by-heartless-gang-444761.html

or Tommy Casey in Oranmore.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/six-years-for-manslaughter-of-robbery-victim-left-to-die-316422.html

See the guy in Tommy Casey's case was given only 6 years and only charged with mansalughter.
That is what Tommy Casey's life was worth. :mad:

There isn't even that for poor old Eddie Fitzmaurice as no one has been brought to book for his murder.

Would all those anti Nally people rather he ended up another news headline like the two men above ?

It is about time ordinary decent people in this country had their rights enforced rather than always hearing how the rights of scumbags who have never contributed anything to our society should be protected. :mad:

Lelantos · 10-01-2013 12:18pm

Boombastic wrote: »

We'll have a procedure in place before hand, just like we've prepared what we'll do in the event of a fire

I hope that works out for you

Boombastic · 10-01-2013 12:19pm

Lelantos wrote: »

I hope that works out for you

I'll let you know after they give me my gun:mad::pac:

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 12:19pm

Wibbs wrote: »

To you. At what point might stuff become relevant for you? Even the most sheldoncooperesque person attaches importance to stuff. It's a human thing. What about the sense of violation? Is that relevant for you? After all objectively someone has only taken stuff from another lump of stuff, their home.

It still doesn't justify killing someone.

It makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally hold precious a lot of material things and would probably in rage do bad things to someone who damaged them or was trying to rob them, but in the cold light of day I wasn't acting rationally and the laws would have to treat me as such.

You can't govern by emotion, I killed him because he was robbing me but listen, I was stressed and angry at the time.

Extinction · 10-01-2013 12:20pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

Wow guys. I am an angry young woman who believes in the right to own guns, and i am vengeful as all hell

And even i think shooting an injured man in the back as he tries to escape is deplorable. A little alarmed by how many of you think such an act is to be applauded.

The injured voilent criminals actions were deplorable, Nally probably prevented many more people from being on the receiving end of voilence from that thug. At a guess I'd imagine Nally was terrified and only did what he thought he had to do in the circumstances.

Thomas20 · 10-01-2013 12:23pm

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't get this gung ho, every man for himself ideals a lot of blokes have.

I don't get why everybody wants the state to do everything for them and take no personal responsibility for their actions.
That scumbag had 80 convictions, mental health problems and was acting suspicious weeks prior to this incident. Nally did the correct thing and was left with no option

Ush1 wrote: »

So then surely the answer is to have better procedures or support from the Guards? That's what they're there for. Handing people out guns and saying "look after yourself lads", is no solution.
Obviously if more people are armed then the burglars will tool up accordingly.

The Guards can do nothing to stop someone from entering your home, we can't have one at every house, so you need to take personal responsibility and protect yourself/your family and property.

gbee · 10-01-2013 12:23pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

such an act is to be applauded.

No so much applauded, as it being a forced hand.

seamus · 10-01-2013 12:24pm

So is there anyone here who supports the right to shoot an intruder, but doesn't support the death sentence?

Dyr · 10-01-2013 12:26pm

seamus wrote: »

So is there anyone here who supports the right to shoot an intruder, but doesn't support the death sentence?

More importantly, Is there anyone here who doesn't understand the fundamental difference between those positions?

Thomas20 · 10-01-2013 12:27pm

Ush1 wrote: »

You can't govern by emotion, I killed him because he was robbing me but listen, I was stressed and angry at the time.

Funny you say that as it is your belief that human life no matter the actions of the person is above all else, which is completely ridiculous, considering the scum out there.

LiamMc · 10-01-2013 12:29pm

Padraig Nally shot someone dead. He would like the everyone else to catch up with him.
50% of the population going into Round 2.
Last Man Standing.

seamus · 10-01-2013 12:32pm

Bambi wrote: »

More importantly, Is there anyone here who doesn't understand the fundamental difference between those positions?

The difference is superficial. Shooting someone in self-defence is not the same as shooting an intruder.

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 12:33pm

Thomas20 wrote: »

I don't get why everybody wants the state to do everything for them and take no personal responsibility for their actions.
That scumbag had 80 convictions, mental health problems and was acting suspicious weeks prior to this incident. Nally did the correct thing and was left with no option

What should the state being doing for us? Killing burglars?

It's not our responsibility to take the law into our own hands. You seriously think arming people and therefore arming burglars coming into houses will result in less deaths? It's just going to up the stakes lethally.

Thomas20 wrote: »

The Guards can do nothing to stop someone from entering your home, we can't have one at every house, so you need to take personal responsibility and protect yourself/your family and property.

Protecting yourself and your family is one thing, throwing guns into the mix is something different.

The Guards being able to do nothing is the issue that needs to be addressed. What about the standards of home security? The very last port of call would be handing out guns in my opinion.

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 12:35pm

Thomas20 wrote: »

Funny you say that as it is your belief that human life no matter the actions of the person is above all else, which is completely ridiculous, considering the scum out there.

Yeah, call me weird but I value human life?

I'm not a fan of the death sentence and certainly not the general public carrying out the executions.

Thomas20 · 10-01-2013 12:40pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah, call me weird but I value human life?

I'm not a fan of the death sentence and certainly not the general public carrying out the executions.

What is your stance on abortion?

Ush1 wrote: »

What should the state being doing for us? Killing burglars?

It's not our responsibility to take the law into our own hands. You seriously think arming people and therefore arming burglars coming into houses will result in less deaths? It's just going to up the stakes lethally.

Protecting yourself and your family is one thing, throwing guns into the mix is something different.

The Guards being able to do nothing is the issue that needs to be addressed. What about the standards of home security? The very last port of call would be handing out guns in my opinion.

Call me crazy but i would like my safety and safety of my loved ones in my property to be decided by myself if ever an intruder tried to enter.

bodice ripper · 10-01-2013 12:50pm

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

What floors me is how you can, in all honesty, characterize it like that. They terrorized him FOR YEARS. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that shooting an injured man in the back is worse than burglary, and cannot possibly be described as self defence. If not self defence, one can only assume it was revenge or as a preventative measure against future incidents. Society would collapse if those are legal reasons to kill somebody.

Bruthal · 10-01-2013 12:50pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

how is shooting a man in the back while he crawls away self defense

Id say you might possibly understand better, had you been the true victim in that case, instead of having the over simplistic vision of an injured man being shot as he tried to escape.

Not that I understand any better, but I can visualize the farmers constant living in fear because of that fella, rather than being a person typing on their computer seeing simply a man being shot in the back.

Thankfully imo, overall, the place that mattered most in this case, decided based on the overall factors of the case, that it was self defence, even if it took retrial.

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 12:52pm

Thomas20 wrote: »

What is your stance on abortion?

Irrelevant. I wouldn't kill people for breaking into a house, you evidently would?

Thomas20 wrote: »

Call me crazy but i would like my safety and safety of my loved ones in my property to be decided by myself if ever an intruder tried to enter.

I might call you crazy if you think guns will enhance you and your families safety. Hypothetically, would you rather:

An unarmed burglar breaking in and having no fear of being shot(therefore no need to carry a gun himself) who wants to rob stuff.

An armed burglar with a gun in fear of his life that you have a gun also so who wants to rob stuff but will also shoot someone.

Also ask yourself in which case are people more likely to die?

Cora Mahoney · 10-01-2013 12:54pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

I understand that shooting an injured man in the back is worse than burglary, and cannot possibly be described as self defence. If not self defence, one can only assume it was revenge or as a preventative measure against future incidents. Society would collapse if those are legal reasons to kill somebody.

I actually laughed at this. "Not self defense"? You are out of your mind.

gbee · 10-01-2013 12:56pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Also ask yourself in which case are people more likely to die?

The better shot usually wins.

But don't forget that people in towns and villages and even in big cities like Cork and Dublin used to leave the key in the door, at best under the mat.

It was the actions of crims and thieves that changed ALL our lives.

Bruthal · 10-01-2013 12:59pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

I understand that shooting an injured man in the back is worse than burglary, and cannot possibly be described as self defence.

When was the last time you were repeatedly burgled and harassed by a dangerous criminal? What would you do after he leaves the next time, go in and chill out in front of the tv perhaps?

Wtf is it with people that they cant visualize outside their comfortable non eventful day to day life, and consider the possibility that in the same set of circumstances, they may just possibly have done the same thing themselves?

If not self defence, one can only assume it was revenge or as a preventative measure against future incidents. Society would collapse if those are legal reasons to kill somebody.

So did this society collapse happen because of this case? Or are we safe because there will be a case by case trial for every possible event?

Thomas20 · 10-01-2013 1:00pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Irrelevant. I wouldn't kill people for breaking into a house, you evidently would?

It's isn't irrelevant, you mentioned the death penalty and are against it and are anti gun, you obviously value criminals life so do you value the life of an unborn innocent child?

Ush1 wrote: »

Hypothetically, would you rather:

Hypothetically, i would like peace of mind and the ability to defend myself, if a break in ever happened.

Bruthal · 10-01-2013 1:01pm

seamus wrote: »

So is there anyone here who supports the right to shoot an intruder, but doesn't support the death sentence?

Was the person shot in this case, just an intruder?

Also, being killed due to perpetrating a crime in someone else`s home is a little different than being killed after being arrested for it.

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 1:04pm

gbee wrote: »

The better shot usually wins.

But don't forget that people in towns and villages and even in big cities like Cork and Dublin used to leave the key in the door, at best under the mat.

It was the actions of crims and thieves that changed ALL our lives.

It is a bad thing when we can't leave keys around like that but I don't think guns would make things any safer. The Nally case was fairly unusual and not an everyday occurence.

The better shot winning is Russian roulette and would be in my opinion, more of a danger to my family than anything. He shoots me dead, what does he do with them? What if it's a gang and they're all armed?

Thomas20 · 10-01-2013 1:06pm

Ush1 wrote: »

It is a bad thing when we can't leave keys around like that but I don't think guns would make things any safer. The Nally case was fairly unusual and not an everyday occurence.

The better shot winning is Russian roulette and would be in my opinion, more of a danger to my family than anything. He shoots me dead, what does he do with them? What if it's a gang and they're all armed?

If somebody with 80 convictions wanted to bring a gun with him to rob an old farmer he would have it's just a good thing he didn't.

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 1:08pm

Thomas20 wrote: »

It's isn't irrelevant, you mentioned the death penalty and are against it and are anti gun, you obviously value criminals life so do you value the life of an unborn innocent child?

No it is irrelevant. You say an unborn child but it is clearly not a child at early stages of pregnancy, it's a clump of cells. It's a completely different topic to arming people to defend against intruders.

Value criminals life yes. So what would you do, kill anybody that's a criminal?

Thomas20 wrote: »

Hypothetically, i would like peace of mind and the ability to defend myself, if a break in ever happened.

Take up martial arts then.

LiamMc · 10-01-2013 1:08pm

Thomas20 wrote: »

If somebody with 80 convictions wanted to bring a gun with him to rob an old farmer he would have it's just a good thing he didn't.

Couldda, Wouldda, Shouldda.
Dreadful post.

seamus · 10-01-2013 1:09pm

Bruthal wrote: »

Also, being killed due to perpetrating a crime in someone else`s home is a little different than being killed after being arrested for it.

Yes, it's worse. At least captial punishment has some form of due process.

Check out the "freaky things" thread, and there's at least one story about someone who woke up to find some drunk guy had gotten confused about where he was, broke into a house and fallen asleep.
This is a surprisingly common occurence. You'd be happy enough that these people can be shot dead no questions asked because they're an intruder, right?

Conmaicne Mara · 10-01-2013 1:10pm

seamus wrote: »

Padraig Nally shot a fleeing injured man in the back. What would he know about self defence?

I'd like to see you at his age, mental state thanks to those gurriers, and living alone in the back end of beyond.

It's easy to throw stones.

Boombastic · 10-01-2013 1:12pm

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it's worse. At least captial punishment has some form of due process.

Check out the "freaky things" thread, and there's at least one story about someone who woke up to find some drunk guy had gotten confused about where he was, broke into a house and fallen asleep.
This is a surprisingly common occurence. You'd be happy enough that these people can be shot dead no questions asked because they're an intruder, right?

It might have a knock-on effect of encouraging responsible drinking. You could warn them by shouting, if the keep coming, well then they're fair game

leonidas83 · 10-01-2013 1:15pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

there is nothing wrong with self defense but murder is murder you don't get to decide if someone else lives or dies not saying you can't touch them but if you kill them face the consequences a court would hear that they were trying to rob you and it wouldn't be the same as stabbing a lad outside a pub

your post "dont go killing people lads, tis a bit harsh" shows a complete lack of understanding of what were talking about here. Were talking about people being so in fear of their lives/home that they are considering arming themselves because the government & judicial system have failed them in this country. I dont have a problem with older people living in rural areas arming themselves so they have some sort of chance against these type of scumbags.

Its not pc but I dont give a s*it. Id like to see what your opinion on it would be if a scumbag with 80 or so convictions for violent assualt/arms breaks into your family home, you wouldnt be long in forgetting about your ideals & concern for these type of individuals then

Thomas20 · 10-01-2013 1:16pm

Ush1 wrote: »

No it is irrelevant. You say an unborn child but it is clearly not a child at early stages of pregnancy, it's a clump of cells. It's a completely different topic to arming people to defend against intruders.

Value criminals life yes. So what would you do, kill anybody that's a criminal?

Take up martial arts then.

Against death penalty and values criminal life and pro abortion, says he is pro human life, what a lovely contradiction.

LiamMc wrote: »

Couldda, Wouldda, Shouldda.
Dreadful post.

hmmm guess that scumbag Shouldda never went on to his farm.

Berns · 10-01-2013 1:18pm

Got robbed before while at work and GF not in. Fitted an alarm after this.

Had someone try to kick a window in while I was out in the garage. Dog heard it and I was straight behind her investigating. Went into the room, window was ok but 2 guys outside, hadda find keys so they ran off and gave some chase down the street but they got away. Reported to police, couldnt find them. Alarm installed and visable but didnt deter em.

Door was left unlocked after a food order one night & had someone come in when GF was watchin TV and I was sleepin (nackared after work). Dogs were barking like mad, which woke me up & sprinted down stairs to see the door being closed. Checked gf ok quickly, when went to confront em to see wtf they doin coming into our house and I got assaulted. GF pulled me in and closed the door. Had glass bottles sitting at the inside of the door but didnt think of using them at the time, just that GF was in there prob scared ****less cause of them comin in , and what could have happened. Also not caught and reports of similar fellows robbin a car that night.

So yeah, I'd love to have the means to at least incapacitate an intruder from range to see if they have actually took anything. Or till police come. It's not like they gonna let you search em, and long gone before police arrive. Problem is havin something legal, small that you can carry that other person can't get a hold off.

Ush1 · 10-01-2013 1:22pm

Thomas20 wrote: »

Against death penalty and values criminal life and pro abortion, says he is pro human life, what a lovely contradiction.

You didn't even address what I said. You're dragging it off topic to make some trite and obtuse point about me personally?

hyperborean · 10-01-2013 1:26pm

Why not, if I own a property and someone decides to come onto the property for the purpose of theft or malice then yes.....its ok to shoot them dead.

Guaranteed reduction on criminal behaviour on private property, and people can live without fear on their wn property....the joys

Thomas20 · 10-01-2013 1:26pm

Ush1 wrote: »

You didn't even address what I said. You're dragging it off topic to make some trite and obtuse point about me personally?

If someone entered my house and i felt threatened i would use anything against that person including a gun.
Iif they did it once they could just as well do it again especially if you are an easy target.

Bruthal · 10-01-2013 1:28pm

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it's worse. At least captial punishment has some form of due process.

The case this thread is about, has had its due process

Check out the "freaky things" thread, and there's at least one story about someone who woke up to find some drunk guy had gotten confused about where he was, broke into a house and fallen asleep.

Was he shot and killed?

This is a surprisingly common occurence. You'd be happy enough that these people can be shot dead no questions asked because they're an intruder, right?

I am posting about this case.

Is it time to arm ourselves with weapons?

Comments