[Regina]

andyt wrote:

Regina wrote:

Retreat should never be an option unless it's to reload or get a bigger stick.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If you're going to get a bigger stick against a guy who's got a gun, that's not too brilliant, is it? If you're reloading to put more bullets in a guy with no gun, that will certainly cause you problems in Canada. Don't know if even Pennsylvania allows you to just shoot a guy who is unarmed. Although if he's in your house and coming for you, ie doesn't stop when you show him your gun, you should be able to do just that.

I have two of these, so I'm not too worried about a stick or gun. They have better hearing than me and are quite interested in anything going on in, or around my house.

[andyt]

raydan wrote:

andyt wrote:

So the 14yr old breaking in as a prank, the drunk that's got the wrong house, you'd feel no remorse for killing? I think the same standard should apply as to cops - if it looks like a gun in their had you can shoot.

Problem is, unless you are trained in handling these kinds of situations (police, military...), you don't know how you'll react until you are IN the situation. You might run out the back door, call the police on your cell or go to a neighbor, hide under the bed, scream like a little girl, bring out the baseball bat/gun, or just turn on the lights and confront him face-to-face.

In the case that you do get your gun and shoot though, should you have to face the law in this situation... I don't think so.

I've got to say that even though a lot of people say that they would shoot him, I don't think that the percentage of people (even if they had access to a gun), would be very high.

So if they find a 14 yr old kid in your basement, shot in the back, there should be no charges for you? Shot in the front but from 30 feet away with no weapon in the kid's hands, just your circular saw he was planning to boost? What about the drunk you shot halfway thru your kitchen window?

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

Saying that you should call the police is not a valid argument when the best police response some people can hope for - even during an armed robbery - can be measured not in minutes but in hours.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/13248 ... to-respond

Quote:

When you call the police, you want an officer there as quickly as possible.

But, in the city of Nashville, it's now taking Metro police longer than ever to answer your calls for help. That's the latest Truth About Crime uncovered by NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

Metro police brass say the response times to the most serious calls still aren't bad, but that's little consolation to all the people left waiting for help.

"If you can't get them to come the one time in your life that you need them, I don't think we're safe," said Dale Hemmerly Miller, who explained that a relative's boyfriend was outside his Inglewood house last weekend threatening to kill him.

Quote:

Miller locked himself in his house and called for police, but it took more than two hours for officers to arrive.

In fact, our NewsChannel 5 investigation discovered that, every night on the streets of Nashville, it's the same story. Police radios crackle with the sounds of patrol officers struggling to find time to take crime reports.

With more officers assigned to make traffic stops and work specialized units, new figures show that Metro's average response time for all calls jumped dramatically -- from 18.7 minutes in 2003 to more than 30 minutes last year.

Wow, I feel sorry for Americans if their police take that long to respond.

I've known of two instances where someone in Edmonton called 911 to report a serious crime (assault and a death threat), and in both cases the cops came screaming up, lights and sirens on in under five minutes.

[andyt]

Regina wrote:

I have two of these, so I'm not to worried about a stick or gun. They have better hearing than me and are quite interested in anything going on in, or around my house.

Then you'll probably never have to worry about it, but you're evading the point you started here. As people say, a good aggressive sounding dog is the best deterrent to burglary. Home invasion by people prepared to shoot might be a different thing, and then, unless you always carry your gun on your hip it might not be of much use to you either.

[raydan]

andyt wrote:

So if they find a 14 yr old kid in your basement, shot in the back, there should be no charges for you? Shot in the front but from 30 feet away with no weapon in the kid's hands, just your circular saw he was planning to boost? What about the drunk you shot halfway thru your kitchen window?

You've got a gun in your hand, you're untrained in these types of situations, you're scared/nervous/high on adrenalin and you're protecting self and family. Most of the times, you won't be thinking, you'll be reacting. I don't think 99% of untrained people know what they would do.

[Regina]

andyt wrote:

Regina wrote:

I have two of these, so I'm not to worried about a stick or gun. They have better hearing than me and are quite interested in anything going on in, or around my house.

Then you'll probably never have to worry about it, but you're evading the point you started here. As people say, a good aggressive sounding dog is the best deterrent to burglary. Home invasion by people prepared to shoot might be a different thing, and then, unless you always carry your gun on your hip it might not be of much use to you either.

I'm not avoiding anything. I think you should be able to use whatever force is available to you at the time to protect your family, your property and yourself. If you want to invent a bunch of hypothetical situations, you're going to get a bunch of hypothetical responses along with a bunch of hypothetical conclusions.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

andyt wrote:

I have a different attitude to someone that enters your house. You shouldn't be allowed to just blast away at anybody in your house,

I disagree. When it's 3:30AM and you hear the smash of glass(and realize it's your window), checking to see if the intruder is armed is one way to find out the hard way.
Inside one's home is the one place a person should be permitted to use ANY force they deem necessary to eliminate the threat.
I mean let's face it, you can't get shot breaking into someone's home if you're not breaking into someone's home. And the sooner the law makers and justice system in Canada realize that you cannot be a victim if you are in the process of committing a crime, the better!

So the 14yr old breaking in as a prank, the drunk that's got the wrong house, you'd feel no remorse for killing? I think the same standard should apply as to cops - if it looks like a gun in their had you can shoot.

They entered my home through illegal means. What am I supposed to do, leave questionnaires by my windows and doors for potential B&Eers to fill out to let me now their intentions? Despite what the law says, I have a moral obligation to protect my family in my home. As for the standard that applies to cops, are you suggesting that someone in my home with a baseball bat of knife isn't a legitimate target? See, the cops have a couple of advantages that I don't have. When they call for back-up, the response is usually pretty quick. They also have kevlar vests. All I have is squishy skin to stop a bullet.

As for the remorse factor, I would feel bad if the person that broke in wasn't a genuine threat. And I'd most likely feel the same if the person was a genuine threat. I can't imagine killing someone up close and personal being an enjoyable experience(unless yer a psychopath), but when it comes to protecting my family in my home, I'll shoot first every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.

[andyt]

Well all I can say is that in Canada you'd better think about what you're doing. Even if the guy has a bat or knife, but is far away from you, you would probably get charged. You're not protecting your family very effectively from prison either. If you have a gun, fire a warning shot, and if the intruder doesn't stop, then go for it.

[BartSimpson]

Andy, the bottom line here is that it's now far more dangerous to be a criminal in Pennsylvania than it was last week. As to the rights of burglars, rapists, armed robbers, car jackers, and the like I really and truly don't give a damn.

The word has gone out that it's open season on anyone attacking someone else or breaking in to their homes in Pennsylvania and I have not one scintilla of doubt that there's criminals in Pennsylvania who are right now planning to move to Canada where they'll be much safer as they go about their business.

And I'm sure that will be a consolation to you as one of these refugees from American tyranny breaks into your house some night and robs you.

[Dragon-Dancer]

BartSimpson wrote:

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

Violence should never be the first option explored if there is other options available.

When violence is already visited upon you then other options are not your choice, are they?

If violence is already being threatened upon you, you've already moved into the realm of self defense. In your home burglary scenario, you have options. Barricade the door and call police being one of them. Escape through a back door is potentially another.

If homeowners are going to be able to just shoot burglars then the burglars aren't going to hold back either. They'll almost certainly be armed and won't hesitate.

There's all sorts of ways to face dangerous situations, you just have to use your head.

Would I protect my home and family to the best of my ability? sure. Would I kill some unarmed schmuck for invading my home when I have other options? no way.

[2Cdo]

andyt wrote:

As people say, a good aggressive sounding dog is the best deterrent to burglary.

My shepherd doesn't sound aggressive, in fact she rarely makes a sound until she detects someone/thing on her property and then she gives a growl that would have the bravest burglar pissing his pants instantly!

I applaud this law and only wish that we could have something like that in Canada.

[BartSimpson]

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

If violence is already being threatened upon you, you've already moved into the realm of self defense. In your home burglary scenario, you have options. Barricade the door and call police being one of them. Escape through a back door is potentially another.

Barricading the door *after* the burglar has entered your home serves what purpose, exactly?

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

If homeowners are going to be able to just shoot burglars then the burglars aren't going to hold back either. They'll almost certainly be armed and won't hesitate.

You mean if we cooperate with the criminals and don't upset them then they might not hurt us? Yeah, that asinine philosophy DIED on 9/11, do try to keep up, eh?

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

There's all sorts of ways to face dangerous situations, you just have to use your head.

You've ruled out some of your options ahead of time. I hope that goes well for you.

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

Would I protect my home and family to the best of my ability? sure. Would I kill some unarmed schmuck for invading my home when I have other options? no way.

How do you know he's unarmed? A police officer in your exact situation would assume the criminal was armed until he knew otherwise. And that is what much of the Castle Doctrine debate has centered about and that is the double standard that has long been applied to police and citizens. A cop can blow the hell out of criminal in someone's house with abject impunity while a citizen doing exactly the same thing will be subject to prosecution.

Castle Doctrine laws resolve that problem.

As to your notion that armed homeowners will result in more violent crimes then, again, you're not paying attention, are you?

Crime rates consistently decline in states that adopt Castle Doctrine. It's facts like his that have caused a historically liberal state like Pennsylvania to adopt such laws. The law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support passed in the House by a 164 to 37 margin and in the Senate by a margin of 43-4.

If you don't wish to be armed then don't be. If you want to retreat from a threat, do so.

As for Pennsylvania they've made up their minds on this.

[ShepherdsDog]

If the possible consequences of theft always outweigh any potential reward, stats will go down.

[Gunnair]

I'll go on record to state that irrespective of whether I agree with this or not, it's in the US and therefore none of my business. If both sides of the border respected the prevailing will of the other, we'd have less forum bunfights.

For all those harping on how dreadful the law is, don't complain when our Yankee cousins wade into Canadian gun control threads to bludgeon us with their American right to bear arms and pervasive gun culture groupthink.