Summations Only

Now you have just got silly. Nobody is suggesting that as a burglar robs you under your own nose that you simply sit there and indeed even hand them your car keys for good measure.The debate here is about necessary force and where "the line" is with regard to that.The "castle doctrine" (as defined) necessitates a "line" that is quite contentious. But don't pretend that opponents to that "line" are suggesting that you simply roll over and hand over your car keys.That is not what is being advocated. And to suggest that it is is nothing more than dishonet debating."Reasonable force"
"Proportionate response"Thesse are essentially the things under debate. Obviously. And nobody here is suggesting that there should be. Stop attacking straw men.

I don't really care about gun restrictions. The point I've tried to make several times is that few people in Canada seem to be interested in having guns for home defense. I've never met anybody who has one or wants one.It seems obvious to me that if homeowners are armed, then the people who burgle or invade those homes are more likely to arm themselves too. Fear just makes for a more dangerous society.

---

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

Have you actually read CS's posts in this thread? Indeed. And the same stance is basically held under UK law.But killing someone who is attempting to steal your microwave doesn't constitute "appropriate physical force".Under the "Castle Doctrine" as defined in this thread anyone believed to be attempting to commit any felony on your property is fair game for the application of "deadly force".That is what I, and others, are objecting to.

Maybe you, or Ringo, or Oni could be more specific about what you think police officers are trained to do.I'm quite sure that what they're trained to spot is threatening individuals concealing the threat they pose, and they're trained to overcome the natural human inclination to hesitate or retreat in the face of an aggressor. They're trained to react quickly to sudden danger.What they're not trained to do is second-guess themselves when someone appears to be a threat, nor are they trained to read minds or something to determine that the weapon being waved around isn't loaded or is fake or something. If you point an unloaded gun at a police officer, they'll open fire on you. That's not an error in their judgement, that's what they're trained to do. They're trained to second-guess situations that don't appear threatening and find the hidden threat. Nobody trains police officers to second-guess threatening situations looking for an excuse not to use force, because that gets officers killed or injured in the line of duty.I mean for god's sake it's routine police procedure to shoot people's tied-up dogs. What police officers are trained to do is overcome their natural hesitancy to shoot human-shaped targets, not to become more hesitant.

"Reasonable force" has to mean the force that you have access to. If your home contains a firearm but not a taser, a court can't determine that "reasonable force" would have been a taser but not a firearm. If you're not strong enough to overpower an assailant, a court can't determine that only your own strength would have been "reasonable force."

Why does that seem "obvious"? Firearms are expensive and hard to come by without leaving a paper trail. It's far more likely that criminals will simply not burglarize homes or burglarize homes they consider unlikely to be armed. And, according to much research, that's exactly what they tend to do - private gun ownership does have a positive effect on crime (at the expense of a far greater incidence of accidental gun injuries.)

Shooting dead someone who is stealing your microwave isn't "reasonable force".

Canadian police, at least, are trained to assess the probable threat and use non-lethal force if possible, batons, pepper spray or tasers. Lethal force is always a last resort. There may not be a lot of hands-on combat training but policy is drilled into them pretty well.By contrast, the homeowner we're talking about only has a lethal weapon and he may have read the instruction book or he may just assume he knows how to use it.

---

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

Yes, and if you could show me where CS advocated the death penalty for misdemeanor burglary I'd appreciate it, since it was your assertion that he did. Appropriate force has to mean the force you have available. A court can't find that taser use was the appropriate level of force if you don't have a taser available. They can't find that physically overpowering the intruder unarmed was the appropriate level of force if you're not strong enough to overpower him unarmed.If someone comes into your home to steal your microwave and can't be dissuaded except by gunfire, then gunfire was the appropriate level of force. It has absolutely nothing to do with what they were there to steal. It's the fact that their choice to break, enter, and steal has put you in severe physical danger. Because felonies are a dangerous thing to have happening in your home! I can't believe you guys seem to think there's some "safe" level of crime that you don't have to worry about people breaking in an engaging in. Breaking into someone's home to commit a felony is inherently dangerous, which is why people have the right to use force to prevent it.

You keep saying that, but I keep reminding you, nobody's being shot for stealing a microwave; nobody believes anybody should be shot for stealing a microwave.People are being shot during the use of appropriate force to end a dangerous situation. Stop arguing with strawmen.

American police, too. Did you think that contradicts what I was saying? I think maybe you didn't read very closely. Well, jesus, how much stuff is he required to have? "Reasonable force" has to mean the force he has at hand. You can't make "taser" the level of reasonable force if the nearest taser is down at police headquarters.

quote:

---

In 2006 and 2007 the Police Department sold 24 M-1 carbines, two 30.06 rifles, two Mossberg 12-gauge shotguns and 14 Remington 870 12-gauge shotguns. The total received for the guns was $12,115.

​

...All the receipts for the gun sales could not be located...Ferguson said that as the guns were sold he would write out a receipt, attach it to the money received and give the funds to Heck, whose desk was next to his in the old Police Department building.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d13-Is-it-time-to-end-the-police-gun-sale-loophole

quote:

---

In some states, like Tennessee, the law requires police departments to sell guns confiscated in criminal investigations. In other states, such as California and Colorado, the police departments have the option of selling confiscated guns. Many states are like New Hampshire where confiscated weapons have to be destroyed.

​

In most states where sales are held, the guns must be safe, operable, have identifiable serial numbers, and the owner has to have been convicted of a crime, or the gun has to have been abandoned, lost, or stolen with no chance of finding the owner.

​

In states where confiscated guns are sold or auctioned, it's not uncommon for them to wind up in the hands of gun-shop owners who then try to sell them to customers. Individuals may also buy the guns and try to sell or trade them at "gun shows" held in cities and towns across the US.

---

The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to Own Guns? | Lawyers.com

But those aren't the criminals we're talking about. We're talking about homes that are armed and criminals who are in those homes. I'm saying that if I was going to burglarize a home, even hoping there was nobody there, I might want to carry a weapon in case somebody turns up. If I know somebody is there, then I definitely want to out-gun them and take them by surprise.

---

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

Sounds unfortunate for the criminal, but who else should bear the physical risk of his decision to engage in harmful, dangerous criminal activity? Given the inherent risks of criminal activity, what are the circumstances where you would attempt to break into and rob a home where people were inside, while completely unarmed? Please be specific. Right, exactly. And the best way to out-gun someone is to have a gun when they don't. So, regardless of who or what was in the home, you'd have a gun.So I don't see what's "obvious" about your contention that an armed populace somehow prompts an arms race with criminals.