Summations Only

By that logic, student drivers should have higher speed limits. We may have greater tolerance for mistakes made due to inexperience but we should also restrict the ability to make mistakes.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Yeah I read back on your state laws and saw that. Insane, but you're right about having the right to do so.- Oni

I can see we do have a problem with definitions here. Earlier in the thread when I said I wasn't aware of any home invasions, I meant home invasions, not burglaries. I call a home invasion a home invasion and a burglary a burglary.In a burglary, I'm unlikely to get an opportunity to shoot anybody. And I've heard of maybe one or two home invasions in the fifty years I've lived here, so no shooting decisions needed there either.By the way, I have been burgled and yes, I did feel like killing the guy and no, I wouldn't have. The "profound effect" it had on me was to make me wonder how poor somebody has to be to rob me.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I only rent a small 1 bdrm apartment (less than 800 sq feet), and I own a handgun too. when you break into my place you are about 15 ft from me at all times. I think you have a solid plan, but I just recently purchased a Mossberg 500 12 gague shotgun, instead of yelling i think I'll just pump one shell into the chamber, everyone knows what that sound means. The rest of your plan sounds great. do you have a LED flashlight mounted on your handgun? it would be great for illuminating the darkness, and giving you a better shot. But yeah I hear you about target ID, I have a drunken cousin, that likes to randomly wander over to my brother's house at odd times in the night, and while it may be anoying I'd hate for him to get shot, for being an idiot. Pul-leeze!?! trained as in they have to go to the range 1/year and qualify hitting targets at ranges of 5yds, 10 yds, and 20 yds. I shoot on a weekly (not yearly basis), I have not met a police officer that can shoot a handgun better than me. I am sure they are out there, but I have not met them as of yet. Which is why I use 2 3/4inch 12 gague, target load winchester bird shot, and why I mentioned the use of the superiority of shotguns for home defense, like back on page two. The importance is of this that a target load is lethal to a human at about 20yds or less, but it will not penetrate the floor, celing, or walls of the interior of a domicile like a copper jacketed pistol round will. I am not sure it matters what I think, as that is the way things are. I am an avid bass fisherman, and I fish at least 1/week; when I am fishing a stream or river, I will not exit the river or water onto private property, because I know the possible consequences; I would not fish a private pond for the same reason, you can get shot for that. and its your fault for tresspassing. yes. It only has to be percieved, you are defending yourself, and your home. I do not think that "servants of the crown" or pedantic liberals will ever understand this. and letting others take as long as they don't threaten you "physically" makes people into nothing but helpless victims. are you by any chance female? because that sounds like a female attitude. ...wow...that is doubtful, I would like to see an example of a homeowner who has defended themselves with lethal force, or more than ONE occasion. I would say the 1st time is enough, if it happens more often, well I just cant think of any examples where it has. most of the time word gets out that the d00d in that house will shoot you if you tresspass and he probably never gets a tresspasser again. here it is an unalienable right given to us by a higher power, i figured you wouldn't understand and I was right.Look we have two different societies, you have a Queen, and I have a President, do what y'all want up there, we got this down hurr. nope, that is how it works. I bet they don't in Louisiana.

Then anything presents a physical risk to you and it seems as though you are not willing to properly assess the situation. And that's because I never said that someone broke into your home, I said you found someone there, a trespasser, a yet to be identified trespasser. You claim this and this alone puts you physical danger.At least now you have backed off a bit, and you're right to do so. I gave you a few situations where you were not in any real danger, but yet, you still had a trespasser. Really... I gave you a few situations where you would not be, you agreed. Criminals, yes, unknown trespassers, given that I can provide scenarios where they are no threat at all, no. I'm sorry, what? Who is pointing a gun at you? I am giving you specific situations that are not threatening. A person who literally is lost, an elderly person who is literally confused about where they live, a retarded person who literally walked in to your house thinking it was where they lived...that's it. In those specfic situations, no crime has been committed, no threat to your life is there, no possible reason to use deadly force is necessary.How someone determines this is where my argument is.The use of deadly force should only come into play when the above has NOT been determined. When the elderly person has a gun, or the retarded person a knife, or whatever else that may be threatening. But until then, you may run the risk of unjustly shooting someone for no reason other than mistakenly walking into the wrong house. Yes, but what does that have to do with not every state allowing you to use deadly force when you find an intruder in your house?Only states who have adopted the Castle Doctrine allow citizens to use deadly force when someone is trespassing inside your house. Other state have the Duty to Retreat law.- Oni

It seems to me that many are caught up on the definition of "risk."Risk is simply the chance or possibility of induced harm. In every case there is perceived risk and actual risk. Sometimes these coincice but many times they do not. Risk is NOT the future. Risk is a probability factor. Even an unarmed intruder is a risk until it can be determined that they pose no threat. Risk is inherent, it is the presence of an unknown. As long as there are unknowns there are risks. It is lawful for a homeowner to systematically eliminate the unknowns to eliminate risk.In Oni's example of a mentally handicapped intruder the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk. Of course, if we take his hypothetical and pair it with Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men," it seems that a mentally handicapped person may be of greater actual risk than perceived risk as well.In most cases a homeowner does not know the actual risk, only the perceived risk. They may only make decisions based on perceived risk. That is why many state laws will allow deadly force if the perceived risk was great enough.The difference between police officers and citizens is that police officers are 1). trained to perceive risk more accurately than citizens and 2). trained to eliminate risk more efficiently and with less force than citizens.I do not own a gun. But, if I perceived enough risk to my wife and child from an intruder I'd sure as hell use any force I could until the risk was eliminated. If i could determine that the intruder was unarmed then obviously my perceived risk level would decrease and so would the level of required force to eliminate the threat. However, if i could not determine the intent of the intruder then my perceived risk remains at its highest level and thus, my level of allowable force would remain high. In other words, I am announcing my presence and if the intruder does not respond by leaving then I'm swinging my baseball bat until the perceived risk to my wife and child is eliminated.

Only in states that have adopted the Castle Doctrine. In some states you are not allowed so it's not really the way it is. Lets say your boat capsizes and you have no other choice, don't you think the owner of the property should determine whether or not you have some justifiable reason for being on their property?Shooting someone just because they're on your property is NOT covered under the Castle Doctrine. And rightfully so. Jeez- Oni

It's a civilized attitude.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

By my logic it's harder to convict a student driver for purposeful vehicular homicide, and what a surprise - it is!

Can you show me where he isn't advocating theft of a microwave as worthy of "deadly force"? And yet the "castle doctrine" whereby one can kill someone for simply being believed to want to commit a felony against ones property is not a principle that has been adopted by many countries and even many US states. Why is that?If it's benefits are as evident and obvious as you suggesting why is there any controversy at all?I agree with Dr A on this. The whole "castle doctrine" thing seems like a gun owning home owning wannabe psychopaths wet dream."reasonable force"
"proportionate response"etc.

It wouldn't have been right for you to have, and you would have had no right to.Had you been there, and been put in physical danger by someone else's act of invading your home and burglarizing it, you would have had the right to use force to defend yourself, regardless of what side of the border you were on. It's just that, in my country, people have the right to own self-defense tools they don't have in your country.I don't think everybody in every country has to have the exact same rights, I guess. I'm ok with burqua bans in France but not in the US; I'm ok with gun restrictions that are consistent with the constitution in your country but inconsistent with the constitution in mine.

Fuuuuucckkk!!Remind me not to turn up at your house un-announced.

Don't be absurd. I've repeatedly mentioned things that aren't a physical risk to me. But someone breaking and entering my home with unknown intentions and capabilities is very much a danger. Well, he wasn't born there, was he? He broke in. He's breaking the law by being there. No, I didn't. You've yet to. Indeed in most of the scenarios you've put forth your invader is actually someone more likely to be a danger to the occupants, not less. The guy holding the gun. He's pointing it at you. It's loaded but hasn't fired.It's no danger, by your standards, because you can't be hurt by a gun until it fires, and it hasn't, yet. It's only when the gun is fired that you're in danger, according to your standards, and then you would be justified in returning fire. Why should I believe that someone could just "get lost" right through my locked door and into my apartment? Why should I believe that a child, or a mentally handicapped person, or a senior can't pose any harm to me given that individuals from those cohorts are regularly prosecuted for crimes?What reason is there to believe they're not there to harm me besides your say-so? What's to prevent them from wandering in lost and deciding to harm me?Being retarded, young, or old doesn't obviate the danger you pose to others by committing crimes and breaking and entering homes where you can't lawfully be. They use their judgement in the situation at hand, that's how it's determined. But according to you everybody needs to use your judgement, and only yours, because somehow you have it on authority that the young, old, and retarded have never ever hurt anyone and never will.That's an absurd and ridiculous standard. Every state, and Canada, does allow you to use necessary force to defend yourself and your home. Every single one. Your understanding of the Castle and related doctrines is simply flawed. There is no state or nation in North America where you have to stand idly by as criminals invade your home and put you and your family at risk. Duty to Retreat statutes don't require you to "retreat" from places you have a legal right to be and your attacker does not, for instance your own home. This is because - again - the physical risk and burden of criminality is not allowed to be shifted from the criminal onto his victims.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

In this thread is where he's not doing that, like I said. You've misunderstood the Castle Doctrine. In every state and Canada, occupants of a home have the right to use appropriate physical force to prevent people from unlawfully entering and committing felonies on the premises.There's somewhat of a controversy about what would indicate that someone is attempting to break, enter, and commit a felony, but the standard pretty much everywhere is "what a reasonable person would believe." I don't know what other standard there could really be, honestly. Because some people apparently think we should make it safer for people to break into other people's houses and take their things.

I said that, and you ignored the rest of what I said. You're also advocating giving that inexperienced student more opportunity to create more havoc. My logic is that a student driver should only be allowed to drive with an experienced driver in attendance and that the same should go for an inexperienced shooter.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.