Is it time to arm ourselves with weapons?

.17hmr

seamus wrote: »

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

He should have shot him right the first time and he would not have been injured !!! .

hyperborean

Thomas20 wrote: »

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.

Its time to cull the criminal population, hardworking citizens need to be able to effect fear on these animals,

Ush1

Thomas20 wrote: »

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.

Yes, for safety reasons I'd imagine?

My point is that I don't believe the accessability and acceptance of using a gun on an intruder would make you any safer. I believe it would possiblity put you in more danger as currently most burglars aren't breaking in to kill you, but if they thought you had a gun then they might kill you, also with a gun.

Gulliver

Sure aren't break-ins great craic altogether. Them dastardly burglars with their striped shirts and bags labelled "Swag".

Some of the posters on here are so far removed from reality that, frankly, it is terrifying. My point is you DON'T KNOW if an intruder is going to just hold you up, steal your stuff and leggit OR try and beat some "hidden" money out of you (especially true for older people) OR force you to go to the bank/employer while their comrade waits with your family OR are there to revenge some slight (employee/ex-partner etc) OR be in and out while you were asleep. You just don't know. People need to have the option to defend themselves from an intruder of unknown intent. The golden rule is - if they are carrying a weapon, you assume they intend to use it.

One of the points not mentioned here is that if a home holds a gun, it should be properly secured and hidden. Easy enough for the owner to get at in an emergency, NOT easy for kids and intruders to find/get at. This should be a stipulation of the license. (There was something about gun safes a few years ago, but I think it has fallen through).

Ush1

hyperborean wrote: »

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

Are you sure?

I'd be interested to see any stats from the U.S. to back up that claim.

seamus

Bruthal wrote: »

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

This thread is not about any specific case.

Thomas20

hyperborean wrote: »

Its time to cull the criminal population, hardworking citizens need to be able to effect fear on these animals,

Amazingly most people think the Guards and justice system can magically fix everything and people should have no say on their own well being.

Ush1 wrote: »

I believe it would possiblity put you in more danger as currently most burglars aren't breaking in to kill you, but if they thought you had a gun then they might kill you, also with a gun.

Really? they don't want to kill me presently but because i might have a gun they have changed their minds and now want to kill me?

Ush1

Thomas20 wrote: »

Really? they don't want to kill me presently but because i might have a gun they have changed their minds and now want to kill me?

Exactly, because their life is now in much more immediate danger from you. Not that hard to comprehend really.

mackg

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?

This has actually happened to me, as in I was the drunk guy. I was staying at a friends whose house I'd never been in and we got separated when we were out. He text me saying he'd leave the back door open. I went to what I thought was the house and went in the back door and went to sleep on the couch. I'm glad I wasn't shot.

Saying that I have no problem with someone using whatever force is necessary in self defense. I doubt anyone does really. Saying that if people are living in fear arming them may not be the best idea. Also since there is a lot of talk of making the elderly re sit driving tests because of their age encouraging them to arm themselves may not be the best route to take.

As has already been said the ideal scenario is a justice system that works and in fairness the alternatives to this aren't really desireable at all.

What I hear from home (rural Kerry) is that violent burglaries like the ones that appear on the news are in the minority. The majority are done without the victim being aware. I've heard stories of machinery being taken in broad daylight. It's clear that in these cases the thieves have been watching the property and there isn't much that could have been done to prevent it.

I'm starting to think that rural Ireland is simply too sparsley populated to be policed effectively by stations in towns that have to cover huge areas of the countryside too.

seamus

Boombastic wrote: »

You could warn them by shouting, if the keep coming, well then they're fair game

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/27880350.jpg

.17hmr wrote: »

He should have shot him right the first time and he would not have been injured !!! .

Yep. We mightn't have ever heard of aul Padraig if he'd just been a better shot.

Thomas20 wrote: »

Really? they don't want to kill me presently but because i might have a gun they have changed their minds and now want to kill me?

Well, yeah. Imagine you're confronted by a guy. You know he's hostile, but you also know he probably doesn't have a weapon. Your first course of action will be to threaten him to back off, right?

Now imagine that you have no idea if the guy has a gun, but there's a good chance that he may have. You do have a gun. Do you think your first action will be to threaten him and hope that he doesn't have a weapon, or to just shoot him and run?

Now imagine that you're the intruder and the other guy is the householder. Are you going to give him a chance to even get his gun out, or will you shoot him to protect yourself?

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

This thread is not about any specific case.

True:D, im rushing around at home and slightly misread the OP. But I was commenting on the Paidraig Nally case more so than in general.

In answer to you`re qustion, if I had a gun at home, and had a burglar at gunpoint, I wouldnt just shoot them for being there. But I would have sympathy for someone who did use lethal force on being confronted by an intruder in their home, rather than making the over simplistic value comparison between property and a burglars life.

If I had been in Padraig Nally`s position that day, who knows. But I cant say as definitively as some others that I wouldnt have done the same thing. I think people judging the actions of others who are in a horrible chronic position forced upon them by the actions of a violent criminal, and condemning them, having themselves never had anything like a similar situation, is more than slightly naive. Again, its a specific case I say that in reference to, rather than in general.

And, imo, the outcome of the case was correct for the circumstances, given what I think I know about them.

darkhorse

seamus wrote: »

Most of the time there is no confrontation between the property owner and the burglar whatsoever.

Why would you want to give the burglar the chance for confrontation? Once he passes my front door, he's mine. No retreat, no surrender.

seamus

Bruthal wrote: »

In answer to you`re qustion, if I had a gun at home, and had a burglar at gunpoint, I wouldnt just shoot them for being there. But I would have sympathy for someone who did use lethal force on being confronted by an intruder in their home, rather than making the over simplistic value comparison between property and a burglars life.

Same here tbh. I'm speaking objectively in terms of the law. There's no way it can be made legal to kill another person in order to protect property. It simply can't be justified.

darkhorse wrote: »

Why would you want to give the burglar the chance for confrontation? Once he passes my front door, he's mine. No retreat, no surrender.

What I mean is that most of the time the householder is not even aware that someone was there until they're gone, not that the householder hides upstairs. The majority of burglaries happen when the householder is not even at home. Saturday afternoons apparently are the most popular.

gobnaitolunacy

mackg wrote: »

This has actually happened to me, as in I was the drunk guy. I was staying at a friends whose house I'd never been in and we got separated when we were out. He text me saying he'd leave the back door open. I went to what I thought was the house and went in the back door and went to sleep on the couch. I'm glad I wasn't shot.

Saying that I have no problem with someone using whatever force is necessary in self defense. I doubt anyone does really. Saying that if people are living in fear arming them may not be the best idea and since there is a lot of talk of making the elderly re sit driving tests because of their age encouraging them to arm themselves may not be the best route to take.

As has already been said the ideal scenario is a justice system that works and in fairness the alternatives to this aren't really desireable at all.

What I hear from home (rural Kerry) is that violent burglaries like the ones that appear on the news are in the minority. The majority are done without the victim being aware. I've heard stories of machinery being taken in broad daylight. It's clear that in these cases the thieves have been watching the property and there isn't much that could have been done to prevent it.

I'm starting to think that rural Ireland is simply too sparsley populated to be policed effectively by stations in towns that have to cover huge areas of the countryside too.

+1, the vast, vast majority of thefts occur without confrontation or the owner even present. It's logical they want to continue their 'career' with as little interruption/idenification as possible. The exceptions are idiots, drugged up junkies who don't care and 'big' men who think they're untouchable by the law.

bodice ripper

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

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

Is that right? How does one defend themselves from someone who is running away?

bodice ripper

Bruthal wrote: »

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?



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?

I have been mugged on numerous occasions, including at syringe point. My home has been burgled. I have had a car stolen, and two failed attempts i interceded in. I have been physically attacked, beaten and sexually assaulted. So, basically, shut yer hole.

I have no problem with the fact that he shot an intruder in his home. None. This person was a clear threat to his safety. But then he shot him again, when he was no longer a threat. That's scum

Cora Mahoney

bodice ripper wrote: »

Is that right? How does one defend themselves from someone who is running away?

You insist on ignoring the context of the situation.

Nally was driven to madness almost: lack of sleep, stress, fear, isolation, desperation, all trying to defend himself and his little patch of land from these animals who came back again and again and again and again ......all of this combined was what resulted in that thief being shot to death.

And he earned it as far as I am concerned.

Cora Mahoney

bodice ripper wrote: »

I have been mugged on numerous occasions, including at syringe point. My home has been burgled. I have had a car stolen, and two failed attempts i interceded in. I have been physically attacked, beaten and sexually assaulted. So, basically, shut yer hole.

I have no problem with the fact that he shot an intruder in his home. None. This person was a clear threat to his safety. But then he shot him again, when he was no longer a threat. That's scum

If the likes of you sees fit to call Nally "scum", I'd say you're "super-scum".
Especially since you claim to be such an experienced victim of serious crimes yourself!

Dyr

seamus wrote: »

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

the difference is superficial, if someone has forced entry to your home then you have no idea as to their numbers, intent, or capability. In that case its justifiable to assume the worst rather than risk your life or that of your families. By breaking in they've made your decision for you

Lelantos

Bambi wrote: »

the difference is superficial, if someone has forced entry to your home then you have no idea as to their numbers, intent, or capability. In that case its justifiable to assume the worst rather than risk your life or that of your families. By breaking in they've made your decision for you

The law in this country states that reasonable force only. If you shoot someone breaking in to rob a ps3, that doesn't count & you go to jail, its that simple

starskey77

Of course arm ourselves baseball bats shooters, my personal favorite
saxa pepper the one you can flip the lid of with your thumb.
I n a lads face guaranteed incopasatated for fifteen minutes.
i suppose chilli powder works well, but you cant beat saxa.
tried and tested in my case everyone,s a winner

darkhorse

Wibbs wrote: »

With respect S and it's bloody rare I'd disagree with you, but I call Bollocks on that. It's just stuff to you. TBH I can't abide this argument. "Ah sure it's just stuff, the insurance will take care of it". A persons home, their personal space has been violated and for many that home is no longer the safe space it once was. Caught an interview recently with a woman with a couple of kids whose house was burgled on xmas day(nice touch from the scum) and they wrecked the place, took everything, the kids toys, even one childs nightlight FFS. Her and her kids were visibly traumatised, but sure it's just stuff right? For many it's akin to a rape of their safe place. I've known people to immediately sell on a car that was stolen and recovered because it felt "wrong", extend that to your house/flat/whatever. For those living in the middle of nowhere, especially if they've already been targeted that level of fear of further violation must be terrible. I've seen an elderly neighbour in the suburbs end up dying by her own hand after a burglary. Again all they took was "stuff", she wasn't even in the house.

Well it makes sure he won't be coming back anyway. Plus the blood was up. It's not like the movies all clean and organised.

As for arming everyone, no I wouldn't like that. Most rural chaps and chapesses I'd know already have a shotgun anyway. The Nally case shows that it was unusual for a farmer to fight back, though I personally know of a couple of incidents where a gun was brandished, in one case fired as a warning, so the thought of an armed nutter has likely put scum off.

Also, and this is very important, a lot of elderly farmers, that previously woud have been terrified, have been inspired by Mr Nally, which has given them some amount of courage.

Silent Runner

I don't anyone has mentioned it, but with the reduction in Gardai numbers, is it time all members should armed in this day and age?

I'd think this should take priority before members of the public should be allowed to own firearms, which I support.

Boombastic

Silent Runner wrote: »

I don't anyone has mentioned it, but with the reduction in Gardai numbers, is it time all members should armed in this day and age?

I'd think this should take priority before members of the public should be allowed to own firearms, which I support.

If they are not in the vicinity of the burglary, I'm not sure what benefit in arming them would be to the resident? By all means arm the Gardai but they need to be near the scene of the crime

Zer0

I have two fists and two legs so that's good enough for me. If someone breaks into my house, depending on the situation as I judge it, I'd either lock myself in a room and call the police to avoid confrontation. But if I had to then yeah, I'd defend myself.

gw80

defending your home and family goes beyond the law, i surpasses it imo, its primeval and instinctive. now if would be thief is willing to drop what they were doing and retreat than yes let them, but in wards case he had been injured and do you think he would have left it at that,"ah shur he shot me ill leave him alone now" no he would have came back for vengence, so im sure he felt he had to finish him off,and rightly so imo.

Bruthal

bodice ripper wrote: »

I have been mugged on numerous occasions, including at syringe point. My home has been burgled. I have had a car stolen, and two failed attempts i interceded in. I have been physically attacked, beaten and sexually assaulted.

The question was, when was last time were repeatedly terrorised and burgled by a dangerous criminal.

So, basically, shut yer hole.

Why is that, for asking a question? Tricky to avoid that on an internet discussion forum.

I have no problem with the fact that he shot an intruder in his home. None. This person was a clear threat to his safety. But then he shot him again, when he was no longer a threat. That's scum

Given the clear history of the person you see as the victim here, toward Mr Nally, that particular "intruder" was now a bigger threat than ever, to Mr Nally, had he got away.

Doyler92

If a man with no arms has a gun, is he armed?

dutopia

Can't we make a law like, if you reach 10 violent convictions you lose your citizenship and we send you off the west coast in a dinghy.

Bruthal

Lelantos wrote: »

The law in this country states that reasonable force only. If you shoot someone breaking in to rob a ps3, that doesn't count & you go to jail, its that simple

But it is not that simple. If it was, then no court case needed.