If you shoot someone thats looting your shop are you defending yourself or the cash in the till????????????
Bob
Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
If you shoot someone thats looting your shop are you defending yourself or the cash in the till????????????
Bob
'Depends. Are you in fear for your life? Are you SURE the guy (GUYS) aren't armed? Even if they aren't, are you sure you aren't going to be 'dispatched' before he/they leave so as not to leave an eyewitness behind? Just what are the particulars, Bob? And, given that you may only have a split second to decide what action you should take in any given situation, would you rather 'error' on THEIR side, or YOURS? Would you prefer to be judged by 12, or carried by 6?
Just sayin'...
And that feeling is the direct result of all the threats leveled against gun owners by the courts/law enforcement over the years. One darned near has to be a Philly lawyer before he can feel free to defend himself with a firearm in any given situation these days, whereas criminals always seem to have 'carte blanche' regardless.
You seem to think that someone robbing an establishment has rights. If you make stupid decisions you have to accept the consequences.
"Think" has nothing to do with it, Al. These days, perps DO have FAR MORE RIGHTS (in actual practice) than the rest of us.
Maybe lawmakers and the courts will 'wise up' one day. Maybe. But, I doubt I'll live long enough to see it.
In the meantime, 'far as I'm concerned, the only 'option' I have if, say, a home invasion were to occur at my place, is to violently defend my wife and myself FIRST - and worry about the courts and the "rights of the perp/perps" later. ('Got that, NSA?)
Those 'be' the rules/policies in effect at my house...laws or no laws. I make NO apologies whatsoever for 'same.
Mess-eth NOT with a "WOGG" on his own turf!
Last edited:
You might want to try a new strategy then, OK not many normal people venture into the paddock I'll give you that, but in my opinion posting your thoughts on a freely available world wide web site is not really conducive to someone who values privacy.
You might want to try a new strategy then, OK not many normal people venture into the paddock I'll give you that, but in my opinion posting your thoughts on a freely available world wide web site is not really conducive to someone who values privacy.
Point taken, but, evidently today's reality is none of us (including you) have any privacy at all when communicating via any electronic method. It matters not which one. Have you somehow missed the NSA's global escapades? (I'd bet they probably have your communication info on file.)
According to one - ONE - U.S. federal judge (Judge William Pauley), we supposedly 'give up' our right to privacy whenever we communicate through any 3rd party because we supposedly have no expectation of privacy if a 3rd party is involved.
Oh really, Your Honor? Well then, tell me, why have the courts said otherwise as far back as the 'prohibition' days when Elliot Ness and the boys were 'tapping' phones w/o a warrant while carrying out their mob investigations? What's the difference between talking on a phone and, say, 'typing' on a computer? There IS none. And whatever happened to "probable cause"? Or, are you telling us that it's reasonable to suspect every person on the planet is a terrorist who's planning to blow up something/someone?
And now the NSA is reportedly working on 'peuters' that will break any 'security encryption'. (Is Judge Pauley telling us that we have no right to expect privacy even when we use encryption???) Good luck keeping our bank/credit card/email passwords, etc., 'private' when that happens. (Let's hope they've hired the same geniuses who created the Obamacare website to get this 'big brother' project done.)
Last edited:
Absolutely.
Not as ironic as the belief that wholesale arming of citizens for the purpose of self-defense, especially if those citizens do not receive regular comprehensive training is beneficial.
Good point Nick, what if a shop keeper was a lousy shot ? He could quite easily shoot some customers instead of a thief. Would the shop keeper then be charged with murder??
Bob
Bob
If I lived in a country where the chances that almost every criminal has a gun are better then 70/30 and historical evidence suggests that they are quite prepared to use them to support their criminal endeavours, even if it's simply to rob a convenience store for fifty bucks, then I, most certainly, would demand the right to also have a gun.
Fortunately I do not live in such a society. I feel perfectly safe, armed with only a cricket bat. Not sure how safe I would feel trying to fend off of a burglar with my bat, if he is armed with a 9mm.
Fortunately I do not live in such a society. I feel perfectly safe, armed with only a cricket bat. Not sure how safe I would feel trying to fend off of a burglar with my bat, if he is armed with a 9mm.
No. Involuntary manslaughter. No different than LEO shoots a bystander by accident whilst trying to prevent a maniac from killing other innocents.
