Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Why do we always seem to arrest the good guys?
119 Answers
http://
Why are we not allowed to defend ourselves in our own homes?
Why are we not allowed to defend ourselves in our own homes?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazarusShort. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Your local firearms officer (which may well be the same as mine if you're in Essex) is telling you the recommendations, not the legal requirements. there are no legal requirements at all for storing (non-slug) cartridges (slug cartridges are classed as S1 ammo so they do need to be locked away separate)
I have a gun - and if 4 men broke into my home I'd use it. If they weren't where they have no right to be with the intention of taking what they have no right to take, they wouldn't have a problem. I have no sympathy whatsoever for burglars.
Having said that, I'd first have to open the safe to get the keys to the gun cabinet (two different keys for two different locks), go elsewhere to fetch the cartridges, and then load the gun. By the time I got it all together, they'd probably have got what they wanted and be away!
Having said that, I'd first have to open the safe to get the keys to the gun cabinet (two different keys for two different locks), go elsewhere to fetch the cartridges, and then load the gun. By the time I got it all together, they'd probably have got what they wanted and be away!
The issue, I believe, is that society should not premit an individual to be at the mercy (or otherwise) of somene who can do as they wish simply because they caught the intruder on their property. That would be immoral. However I suspect it is difficult to frame laws that allow freedom of defence and yet bans sadistic retribution. The more complicated the law trying to cover all eventualities, the less likely anyone will know or understand it. I have sympathy with those who wish to defend themselves and their property, but a decent society must have some kind of limit.
The police are absolutely right to arrest the homeowners.
What else could they do? Accept their version of events at the crime scene? You simply cannot do that.
The arrest doesn't necessarily mean that the homeowners are in the wrong. It simply means that the police need to establish the facts of the case.
Anything less would be sloppy police work.
I think we need to be careful of jumping the gun (no pun intended) here.
What else could they do? Accept their version of events at the crime scene? You simply cannot do that.
The arrest doesn't necessarily mean that the homeowners are in the wrong. It simply means that the police need to establish the facts of the case.
Anything less would be sloppy police work.
I think we need to be careful of jumping the gun (no pun intended) here.
Ok, for some of the handwringers that seem to be more concerned for the perpetrators what do you do if people or persons unknown break into you house at night ?
how do you know if they have concealed weapons on them, you dont
On that basis what constitutes reasonable force to ensure they cant access those weapons to use on you or your family.
No matter what, you should put all thoughts except protecting youself and your family at all costs out of your mind.
If you have weapons then as far as I'm concerned you should use them and if deadly force is the only really reliable way of making sure they cant do you or your family any harm then you need to use it.
they should not be on your property, they should think about the consequences, and they should pay the price if they continue with their actions
how do you know if they have concealed weapons on them, you dont
On that basis what constitutes reasonable force to ensure they cant access those weapons to use on you or your family.
No matter what, you should put all thoughts except protecting youself and your family at all costs out of your mind.
If you have weapons then as far as I'm concerned you should use them and if deadly force is the only really reliable way of making sure they cant do you or your family any harm then you need to use it.
they should not be on your property, they should think about the consequences, and they should pay the price if they continue with their actions
None of us know if the shooter is a good guy or that he simply didn't shoot on sight rather than 'get off my property' first.
However, those that say he should not have shot them or argue you can reason with burglars need to think about it in their heads as if it were happening to them. 2am, your dozing, you hear a window smash, you tip toe downstairs frightened, are then confronted by a masked person with a cosh raising it into the air. Put like that, I would whip out anything to hand be it a knife or legally owned gun and 'defend' myself.
The problem though is crossing the line. If I had him on the floor and was constantly stabbing him then I am no better than them.
However, those that say he should not have shot them or argue you can reason with burglars need to think about it in their heads as if it were happening to them. 2am, your dozing, you hear a window smash, you tip toe downstairs frightened, are then confronted by a masked person with a cosh raising it into the air. Put like that, I would whip out anything to hand be it a knife or legally owned gun and 'defend' myself.
The problem though is crossing the line. If I had him on the floor and was constantly stabbing him then I am no better than them.
I'm sorry but with the horrors we read about in the news with householders found dead and tortured in their own home and burglaries gone wrong, if a householder feels overwhelmed and has a shotgun they damn well need to use it, who knows what those 4 men may have done to the wife and hisband? they were lucky they weren't blasted to hell. stupidity is the least of the burglars crimes but it is surely on the list.
''who knows what those 4 men may have done''
The key words here are 'may have done'. If you shoot and kill all four based on 'may have done', you deserve to go to prison for life.
I'm not defending these idiots. What I am saying is if someone were standing there unarmed and you just shoot based on what they may do, you are no better than them. That is why there are so many killings in America. Shoot on sight because people feel threatened about what someone may do rather than what they have done (ie raised a cosh at them, gone to attack them).
If we apply the logic of shoot on sight because you feel threatened then why not take a knife with you everywhere. The man walking in front of you at 2am looks odd so you stab him because of what he may do to you. The man who smiles at your daughter at a school sports day, kill him just in case of what he may do to her.
No they should not have burgled the house, yes he should defend himself if they go to attack him. There should not be smoke without fire.
The key words here are 'may have done'. If you shoot and kill all four based on 'may have done', you deserve to go to prison for life.
I'm not defending these idiots. What I am saying is if someone were standing there unarmed and you just shoot based on what they may do, you are no better than them. That is why there are so many killings in America. Shoot on sight because people feel threatened about what someone may do rather than what they have done (ie raised a cosh at them, gone to attack them).
If we apply the logic of shoot on sight because you feel threatened then why not take a knife with you everywhere. The man walking in front of you at 2am looks odd so you stab him because of what he may do to you. The man who smiles at your daughter at a school sports day, kill him just in case of what he may do to her.
No they should not have burgled the house, yes he should defend himself if they go to attack him. There should not be smoke without fire.
so whilst you are turning on all the lights and asking them whether they have any weapons and what their intentions are and deciding whether they are telling the truth, and assuming you have a hand free to ring the polis, you can't actually shoot them if they were lying and they are tooled up? what good is the law to anyone then?
http://
"Do I have to wait to be attacked?
No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself."
"Do I have to wait to be attacked?
No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself."
Defensive force does not mean killing.
Let's look at a more extreme example. You have a machine gun sneaked home from the Falklands by your son. You hear a noise downstairs and see 20 unarmed men searching your drawers. You let rip and out come hundreds of bullets killing all 20.
You deserve to be hung. That is not defence.
Them coming at you with something even if you cannot see it is defence. Some on here seem to think that simply by someone being in your house it gives you a right to kill them even if they are standing there saying sorry. That is where my issue with some on here lays.
Let's look at a more extreme example. You have a machine gun sneaked home from the Falklands by your son. You hear a noise downstairs and see 20 unarmed men searching your drawers. You let rip and out come hundreds of bullets killing all 20.
You deserve to be hung. That is not defence.
Them coming at you with something even if you cannot see it is defence. Some on here seem to think that simply by someone being in your house it gives you a right to kill them even if they are standing there saying sorry. That is where my issue with some on here lays.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.