Is it time to arm ourselves with weapons?

judgefudge

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions. Since when is killing someone punishment for the crime of burglary?

I agree that thieving is a scumbag crime but certainly not punishable by death. It's the attitude here that I see as the biggest argument against arming civilians.

A gun would only be useful in my eyes to either scare away a criminal or to injure them. The impression I get on here is that people would not wait to be in a position of self defence, where the gun is necessary. Many of you seem to assume that it's ok to shoot and kill "scum" because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

It's absolutely beyond me.

Cora Mahoney

Madam_X wrote: »

Nally was not elderly at the time. He was however in a vulnerable situation of course - same as if he were young. He should not have taken another person's life no matter how much a lowlife, other than in self defence: this was not the scenario of the fatal shooting.

However, what irks me is the implication that somehow Nally was in a rational frame of mind when he did it; that he was able to think things through calmly during this frenzied and terrifying situation, one which was just the latest in a long string of them for him. The man was in "snap" mode after being terrorised for too long; no doubt the fear of revenge from Ward and his buddies, possibly later that night (can you imagine the terror of that thought?) was going through his mind too.

What I find weird is you seem to grasp his terrified mental state and yet claim it wasn't self defense. Yes, it was. Those animals were back yet again, on his property, in his home!

Thomas20

judgefudge wrote: »

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions.

So far removed from reality.

Cora Mahoney

judgefudge wrote: »

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions. Since when is killing someone punishment for the crime of burglary?

I agree that thieving is a scumbag crime but certainly not punishable by death. It's the attitude here that I see as the biggest argument against arming civilians.

A gun would only be useful in my eyes to either scare away a criminal or to injure them. The impression I get on here is that people would not wait to be in a position of self defence, where the gun is necessary. Many of you seem to assume that it's ok to shoot and kill "scum" because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

It's absolutely beyond me.

Horse****, frankly. Most of these shallow assumptions have already been debunked by various posters.

Boombastic

freddiek wrote: »

.................... because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

...............

Because they might tie you up and beat you,
because they might pull out your toenails,
because they might scald you with boiling water
because they might stab you


because who knows what they're capable of

CruelCoin

judgefudge wrote: »

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions. Since when is killing someone punishment for the crime of burglary?

I agree that thieving is a scumbag crime but certainly not punishable by death. It's the attitude here that I see as the biggest argument against arming civilians.

A gun would only be useful in my eyes to either scare away a criminal or to injure them. The impression I get on here is that people would not wait to be in a position of self defence, where the gun is necessary. Many of you seem to assume that it's ok to shoot and kill "scum" because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

It's absolutely beyond me.

The average Joe Bloggs has no official training in self-defence.

Joe cannot be assumed to be able to disable an intruder effectively, while not posing harm to himself or the intruder.

Given the above, when an intruder has a knife or a gun, the lack of training thrusts you into a kill or be killed situation. One where a centre-mass attack would yield the untrained the greatest likelihood of sucess.

Ask any rational person the simple question "them or you", how do you think they would answer? Then why the surprise when people voice it here?

gobnaitolunacy

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It is too easy for us to say stuff like this having never been in the situation he was. I don't disagree with anything you say but there are exceptional circumstances and situations that only those placed in them could possibly understand. I'm glad I live in a country where guns are not commonplace but when somebody does what McNally did, it would be incredibly harsh for anyone to pass judgement.

Hence Nally was quite reasonably acquitted of manslaughter. Justice prevailed albeit somewhat too late.

allibastor

I am from limerick, we have been arming ourselves for ages down there,what took the rest of ye!!!!!

TheDoc

judgefudge wrote: »

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions. Since when is killing someone punishment for the crime of burglary?

I agree that thieving is a scumbag crime but certainly not punishable by death. It's the attitude here that I see as the biggest argument against arming civilians.

A gun would only be useful in my eyes to either scare away a criminal or to injure them. The impression I get on here is that people would not wait to be in a position of self defence, where the gun is necessary. Many of you seem to assume that it's ok to shoot and kill "scum" because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

It's absolutely beyond me.

Be interesting to know if you have ever experienced a burglary before. I'd imagine not.

I can assure you from experience when you encounter a thief in your kitchen, both of you knowing there is a rake of knives in a drawer, your not going to ask were they looking for a teaspoon.

TheDoc

CruelCoin wrote: »

Ask any rational person the simple question "them or you", how do you think they would answer? Then why the surprise when people voice it here?

Then when you throw in " them or your family" and its just a rhetorical question

areyawell

I'd be nervous, from the windows to the walls till the sweat drips down down my balls.
I'd probably use a shotgun and blow his legs off and then make him say woof woof, I'm a stupid dog and kick him in the head until he says it.

CruelCoin

areyawell wrote: »

I'd be nervous, from the windows to the walls till the sweat drips down down my balls.
I'd probably use a shotgun and blow his legs off and then make him say woof woof, I'm a stupid dog and kick him in the head until he says it.

Did you just quote a r'n'b song?

who_me

judgefudge wrote: »

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions. Since when is killing someone punishment for the crime of burglary?

I agree that thieving is a scumbag crime but certainly not punishable by death. It's the attitude here that I see as the biggest argument against arming civilians.

A gun would only be useful in my eyes to either scare away a criminal or to injure them. The impression I get on here is that people would not wait to be in a position of self defence, where the gun is necessary. Many of you seem to assume that it's ok to shoot and kill "scum" because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

It's absolutely beyond me.

I genuinely don't mean this as an ad hominem insult, but are you insane? If you woke to find someone fumbling about in your living room, you'd tap them on the shoulder and start asking questions? "Are you taking the games consoles? How about the TV? The TV too? Pity it's a new one..." Perhaps hand them a Burglary Questionaire and a pen* to fill it out.

Am I being trolled here?

(* a cheap pen, obviously).

Wibbs

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

In 2010, African-Americans accounted for 76.2% of murder arrests and Hispanics accounted for 19.3% of murder arrests in Chicago. In other words, 95.5% of murder arrests in Chicago were African-American and Hispanic.

I'm afraid I disagree that "there is no racial element".

So different "races"(though populations would be a more scientific description) are more prone to criminality and murder? Hooookaaaay.

How many educated middle class blacks or hispanics are committing crime compared to underclass whites? Even the middle class blacks are more exposed to their underclass by proximity and by comparison to middle class whites.

These stats are legitimate and my source is good. People can draw their own conclusions.

That you've drawn your own conclusions based on dubious racist preconceptions maybe?

CruelCoin wrote: »

The average Joe Bloggs has no official training in self-defence.

Joe cannot be assumed to be able to disable an intruder effectively, while not posing harm to himself or the intruder.

Given the above, when an intruder has a knife or a gun, the lack of training thrusts you into a kill or be killed situation. One where a centre-mass attack would yield the untrained the greatest likelihood of sucess.

Ask any rational person the simple question "them or you", how do you think they would answer? Then why the surprise when people voice it here?

Well there's also the aspect of whether your average untrained person would actually aim and fire at an intruder standing in front of them. I strongly suspect the majority wouldn't.

mawk

20 gauge rock salt shells for all and I'm pretty happy. No need to kill an intruder if you need to shoot them

Lelantos

Bruthal wrote: »

What if you shoot a 35 year old with 60 convictions, doing exactly the same thing?

It's murder.

bodice ripper

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

Umm, if someone is in your home and "terrorizing" you and your family: yes, they should be shot.

For some reason, this post was in an appalling Valley Girl voice when i read it.

I have already said i am fine with that. But having neutralized the threat, shooting an injured man as he tried to escape is morally repugnant.

"Should be shot" is weird. Surely you only kill someone if you "must", ie its the only way to ensure you or your family's safety. An injured person running away is not an immediate threat.

666irishguy

Anybody who gets shot or wounded while committing a robbery should just be told the reality of the fact that he would be in perfect working order if he wasn't robbing somebody's property. I live in a relatively rural part of Ireland and there are a lot of old men and women living in fear of being burgled and assaulted by what seems like several gangs operating in a few counties. Many of those elderly people can only sleep at night knowing they have the double barrelled shotgun in the room with them and that it is the only thing that will even the odds for them when some young scumbag is smashing through their house with a knife or a hammer.

bodice ripper

Boombastic wrote: »

Because they might tie you up and beat you,
because they might pull out your toenails,
because they might scald you with boiling water
because they might stab you


because who knows what they're capable of

Now we should shoot people for what they might do? However statistically improbable the acts might be?

TheDoc

bodice ripper wrote: »

For some reason, this post was in an appalling Valley Girl voice when i read it.

I have already said i am fine with that. But having neutralized the threat, shooting an injured man as he tried to escape is morally repugnant.

"Should be shot" is weird. Surely you only kill someone if you "must", ie its the only way to ensure you or your family's safety. An injured person running away is not an immediate threat.

I don't see why your constantly recycling this point?

It can be easily argued that even as the assailant laid injured, there was still clear and present danger to the safety of the home owner who persisted in neutralising said threat. It is entirely plausible there was fear of a retaliation from the victim.

It can also be easily argued that rational thinking and long term planning was also muted, with the grievous danger and threat that presented the shooter.

Basically, why are you having a stiff one over an intruder being shot dead,. More cotton wool talk for me, which seems to be wrapped around a lot of this forum.

And it normally comes from people never before in the same situation, or having any experience of anything relevant. The same sort of person who will pompously remark how they would never bottle anyone in a fight, or use a weapon in a fight, and never kick a man when he is down, and all this ridiculous crap.

allibastor

Guys, All joking aside, the point remain a vaild one from the states.

If someone makes the conscious choice to break into your house you can assume they are not there to borrow some suger. At that point you dont know what their intention is, it could be to simply rob the place, or do something worse. BUT YOU DONT KNOW:

what you do know is that they have made the choice to break into your house, a place they know is not theirs and to commit some form of felloney.

Your thinking at the time will be tat of who is this person in my house, what do they want and what will they do to me to get it.

if they want to avoid getting shot, stay the hell out of someone elses house.

Thomas20

bodice ripper wrote: »

Now we should shoot people for what they might do? However statistically improbable the acts might be?

No, as another poster said we ask them what is their business in my house, if they respond negatively we run away and hide and wait for gardai to arrive.
We give them all the details they need and they never catch the person trespassing in your property. We then live in fear of another incident.
Or maybe they have an iron bar and beat the **** out of you.

CruelCoin

mawk wrote: »

20 gauge rock salt shells for all and I'm pretty happy. No need to kill an intruder if you need to shoot them

"Deaaan"
*Cue, Sam: smoldering good looks pouty face*

Hamiltonion

Don't agree with shooting an injured man when he was no longer a threat however you you break into someones home and they shoot you well WTF did you expect?

If it's proved someone stood over a wounded burglar and shot them in the head from point blank they should face prosecution too, however if they shot once and happened to hit the intruder in the head / vital organ leading to death then tough titties.

Wouldn't support legalization of semi autos or handguns as they'll more often than not be used to facilitate a crime but I see no problem letting homeowners in rural areas possess a rifle or shotgun - bit different in a city centre apartment


FYI I live in an apartment

Hamiltonion

Further to that in regards ethics

If you encounter an unarmed burglar you shout a warning and tell em to sit down and shut up till guards arrive or you shoot

If the burglar has an iron bar, bat etc you shoot em once and do the same

If they have a fire-arm you open up on em till they stop moving.


Your safety comes 1st in your own home

TheDoc

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Wouldn't support legalization of semi autos or handguns as they'll more often than not be used to facilitate a crime but I see no problem letting homeowners in rural areas possess a rifle or shotgun - bit different in a city centre apartment


FYI I live in an apartment

Am I mistaken in thinking that there is no ban on these?

I'm pretty sure a few of my neighbours, part of shooting clubs, have pistols. Not sure on the semi automatics, if your referring to assault rifles which your probably right.

But I'm pretty sure you can have handguns, actually I'm 100% cause I've seen a neighbours collection, and that is in a housing estate, so I'm sure rural area is even easier.

Lelantos

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

See why I avoid this type of discussion? Already I'm an "it" for posting some non-pc facts about murder rates in Chicago

Try it with a full state, Louisiana & Alabama, same arguement but with a poor & uneducated white population compared to the national average & 2 of the 3 highest gun death states in America, the poor race card cuts both ways

asherbassad

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

Where are your stats and sources for your claims? I provided mine.

Since 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim was black.

In the same period 178 people have been executed where the victim was white and the defendant black.

Also white account for 50% of all murder victims yet 80% of all capital cases involve white victims.

Source: aclu.org

Hamiltonion

TheDoc wrote: »

Am I mistaken in thinking that there is no ban on these?

I'm pretty sure a few of my neighbours, part of shooting clubs, have pistols. Not sure on the semi automatics, if your referring to assault rifles which your probably right.

But I'm pretty sure you can have handguns, actually I'm 100% cause I've seen a neighbours collection, and that is in a housing estate, so I'm sure rural area is even easier.

I don't own a gun so I really couldn't tell you. Unless you're at a gun range every day competing in events you shouldn't be let have a handgun. I'd like a system where if you have anything other than a shotgun or rifle it had to be left locked in your local range much like in Canada. In regards rifles and shotguns I think once you don't have a criminal record (not counting minor **** like speeding or smoking a joint) then getting a rifle or shotgun license should just be a formality.

Cora Mahoney

bodice ripper wrote: »

For some reason, this post was in an appalling Valley Girl voice when i read it.

I have already said i am fine with that. But having neutralized the threat, shooting an injured man as he tried to escape is morally repugnant.

"Should be shot" is weird. Surely you only kill someone if you "must", ie its the only way to ensure you or your family's safety. An injured person running away is not an immediate threat.

You are wrong and keep repeating this ridiculous line in a poor attempt at salvaging your position. You've failed.

Who are you to say "the threat had been neutralized"?

And has already been pointed out ad nauseaum, Nally's mental state, due to the criminal and ongoing torments of his "victim", had been driven past the point of rationality. He hadn't slept in days either, apparently; he was a man on the edge.

And again: I don't give a rats arse about your so called "morality".