Reply With Quote
That's right.
*makes mental note to avoid sidewalk*
That's right.
Shooting to kill would be last resort for me. A shot or two in the leg will suffice.
If people really cared they'd get an alarm. That should be priority 1.
Let me get this straight.
You once said that you were willing to put your life on the line to help someone that is being threatened. You said it didn't matter if that person possibly had a weapon.
Now, you are saying that shooting to kill is a last resort.
So, if it's not your family, you're ready to put your life on the line. But, if it's your family and home that you have to defend, you're not willing kill someone that is threatening them?
So, the alarm goes off and someone is in your house with a weapon, are you just going to wait until the police arrive half an hour later?
Good question. I understand the word "neighbor" to be anyone who lives in your neighborhood. So I would consider the guy and woman the other end of the street my neighbor. They aren't my immediate neighbor, but neighbor nonetheless. And of course, as you may already know, you can only defend a neighbor's house if the neighbor gives you permission to do so.
Defense can mean a lot of things. It doesn't always mean killing someone.
It takes care of calling the police for you, which I consider the first priority. After that, if the situation presents itself (assuming the alarm doesn't scare off the burglers, which it is supposed to do) then go ahead and gather your familly in a safe spot and be sure to take a weapon there for security.
If you for some reason can't find a safe spot, or don't have one, than shoot the bas (s) in a spot where they won't die, such as the leg.
I don't believe you should deliberately kill someone unless you have to.
BTW, most burglers are drug addicts. My causin has been robbed on several occasions, and if you lock yourself in a room or hide, You're usually safe.
Signed, Sean Taylor.
I'm not a gun proponent by any means, but I can certainly understand the concept of allowing a homeowner or property owner to shoot to protect his own property. I would generally agree that the preferrable method would be to attempt to shoot in a non-lethal fashion, but I can certainly understand a rule of law that essentially exempts a property owner from criminal liability when shooting to protect his own property.
What I don't understand is extending that doctrine to justify shootings (and homicides) in the name of protecting the property of others -- that seems a lot like the informal creation of a militia or a posse authorized to use lethal force to stop perceived criminal activity; and that strikes me as a rather dangerous proposition.
Shooting in a non lethal fashion is a bad bad bad bad thing. If you have a gun, you better be shooting to kill.
He just shot them because they were black, if they had been white and were robbing the place he would have asked them over for coffee and cake.
Shooting a person in the leg that also has a gun isn't an effective way of defending yourself and your family.
Hitler? You went there?
Seriously??
I would kill without hesitating any f***er who breaks into my house with a weapon in their hand.
RG's home defense:
Guns are for sissies...
It is one of those axioms to the Laws of Probability.
As the length of any thread increases, the odds of someone mentioning either anal sex or Hitler approach 1 (certainty).
Alarm = loud noise = lots of attention = bad guys go away = they stop ing robbing me.
Did France not turn a blind eye to Hitler's invasions of Austria, Hungary, and Poland?
??
Well, I have no way of refuting that, but it's not the opinion I have.
Anal sex happens when a sexual deviant enters your house.
But, you can call the cops for that.
Pretty much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
