Volt-Schwibe

last night, here in Vancouver, Wash, a man woke up to hear a strange noise in his garage. he grabbed his gun and went out there, and found a man who also had a gun.

he shot the man dead, it's all over the news, and there is now an investigation.

i just wanted to share the most exciting thing that happened all night, that is all.

elf

People have been killed for less. If the guy was on his property with a gun he has a right to defend himself.

A woman I work with told me one of her friends paid some guy 20$ and a case of beer to beat up her x-husband (for custody of kids long story involved that I'm not getting into), and the guy nearly killed her x-husband. or so i was told.

mimo2005

here s a different view of this topic :

What if all the guns (like many countries in europe)
are totally banned ?

only police can carry them .

So what worst can happens :
you ll have theif coming with a knife , then i make sure i have a big knife under my pillow .

elf

If guns become illegal, then only criminals will have guns...

idtent

I agree with the investigation. I would support the outcome.
It all depends on where the gun came from, did the intruder have a criminal history. Was it a homeless guy?

Lots of questions need to be answered. I believe that some of these "home" invasions have been covered up by a homeowner who was in the wrong. He could "plant" the gun or add details to his story that actually did not happen.

I don't have 100 percent faith in our justice system, but if some of these questions are answered than I would accept the outcome.

Jason

I agree.

I agree that it does happen sometimes, but the investigation will answer that.

I for one would not wait to see if someone would shoot me if I found someone in my house with a gun. Then again, all I have is a BB Gun, but I do have a Battle Axe and a Sword and would like to get a War Hammer next.

badger

but if you're not a criminal, what use do you have for a gun...? unless you're a farmer, of course.

a similar case happaned here in britain. a farmer (Tony Martin, incase you want to look it up) shot a burglar, and the farmer got 10 years. there was outrage at the time. Personnally, I think that if the criminal is gonna invade your property, then he should get what is coming to him. However, the law is an ***.

you have to consider that if you tell people they can kill anyone that comes onto their property, they could reasonably kill anyone, and claim they thought they were trying to rob them. It could just be someone looking for an address, who were knocking on your door to ask directions. annoying maybe, but perfectly leagal. you could shoot them. and get away with it.

DumberDrummer

Self-Defense?

If you aren't a criminal, then you should be able to have a gun to defend yourself if you deem it necessary

If you are a criminal, you have a gun anyway, so............

FIGHT CRIME.....SHOOT BACK

mimo2005

here is an incident that happened a couple months ago :

2 cars speeding in the I93 south bound , they both passing each other or blocking each other , at the end ,both cars stopped , one carry a gun , and the other not .

he shot the other guy in the head , dead .

and he called the police after that .



also


how many kids get shot by a gun at home ,playing with their parents gun at home ?

bry623

I figure if you are in the act of committing a crime, then you deserve what you get. If you infringe on someone else's rights (breaking in his house), you should have yours infrringed on as well.

I am one of few Republicans who is in favor of some sort of gun control. All too often kids at a young sge are exposed to guns and violence on TV. So when they find a gun, they just got to touch it. At least in my state, the gun owner is charged as if he were the one pulling the trigger, when his kids blow hteir friend'd head off.

elf

Self-defense?

I'll agree that the investigation is not unfounded, as the guy could have tried to cover up the fact that he murdered this guy, but if it happened like the story said it happened he should get off with no punishments.

badger

fair enough. BUT. if a criminal knows that the occupants of a house he's about to rob are likely to have a gun, he'll make sure he (or indeed she) has a bigger and better gun. however, if the chances of the occupants havering a gun are slight, he/she's going to be a lot less bothered about taking a gun. at most, the robber is more likely to use one as a scare tactic. not as a weapon to kill someone.

^ not saying I agree with it, but it is a point of view that does carry some weight.


btw, went shooting not so long ago, and the instructor told us this:
carry and air rifle down the street, and you can be locked away for max 10 years. but carry, a real rifle down the street, with intent to kill someone - max sentence is 5 years. so stupid.

jgvernonco

Bry, you are not the only Rep. here who believes in some gun control, but I guess my take is a little different.

You see, I was licensed to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona for over six years (right up until I left). I carried over 90 % of the time I was out of the house. I was extremely annoyed by limitations on where we could carry, as a weapon was always safer with me than locked in a car in a state with the #1 auto theft rate in the nation.

So, this guy hears something in his garage, he grabs his gun and goes to investigate. He finds a robber with a gun. What happens from that moment determines if the shooting was "right" or not. You see, no law actually allows a citizen to protect their property with deadly force.

A man in Phoenix shot another fellow who was stealing his pickup. The shooter was convicted; I agree.

When I was working in the "big jails" of Maricopa County, I had a young man come in who had shot at two men stealing his mail; I told him to save his bail money and get a good attorney. That behavior is unacceptable. He was convicted. The main thing that helped the prosecuters was that he had a concealed carry license; he knew better.

I do believe that handgun operators should be licensed, just like automobile operators. I also believe that, once an operator is licensed, nobody operating a public establishment of any kind should be able to abridge their right to be armed, "private property rights" be damned.

Of course, I think these licenses whould have something behind them. In AZ, you are going to put in 16 hours, pass a state-issued written test, then prove your proficiency with the weapon at 10 feet (more than enough for self defense applications). Then, you will pass those tests again, 4 years later, during your renewal. Annual renewal would be fine with me.

For those of you that might know the pistolero world a bit, I was blessed to attend training at the Gunsite Academy, twice.

Over and over again, we were drilled that you have the right to defend life, not property. They put us against pass/fail scenarios that drove that home.

Even if you have a gun, call the police. Don't go wandering about with your gun looking for bad guys...call the police. Get your family together in one place, prepare yourself mentally to defend them, and let the police handle the rest.

In AZ, with all us gun-totin maniacs, that fellow shooting a man in a garage would need a good attorney, indeed.

blackduck30

the laws have changed here a while ago and we in Australia now have the right to defend our property with resonable force. I don't own a gun and have never liked the idea of owning one, because they tend to kill people ( well the gun needs a person to help it kill ) I agree that if someone comes into my house and has intent to hurt, or kill my family I will die trying to take that person out and protect my family, I will kill them if I have to. The way the law is setup here the person who breakes into your house has the right to charge you if they are hurt or injured ( i think it may have changed now, no sure ) . there was a case a while back were a person shot a person breaking into his house who had a gun , so he shot him. The invaders gun was stolen and the home owners gun was legal so he was not charged.
In my opinion if you have a gun you are prepared to use it and die. It does not mean that if a person breaks into your house with a screwdriver you have the right to take his head off with a shot gun, but if he is stabbling your wife then by all means take his head off with that same shotty ( being very careful not to take your wifes head off with it of coarse ).
Maybe if they gave the death penilty for home invasion it would make people think twice

P.S i do agree with defending life and not possesions as that is what insurance is for , you can replace a tele but not a life

DaveMo~

Seems like there's lots of varying opinions here about guns. There's also a lot of different countries represented here with many different laws. BTW, that's another great thing about this, and a lot of forums, diversity of people and opinions.

I've seen lots of these arguments over and over about whether "common" people should have guns, but I don't think the sides will ever meet. I'm on the "yes" side.

Food for thought: If we want to get rid of guns because they kill people, why don't we want to get rid of the top killers (of Americans), cars and doctors?

badger

Am I being stupid here, or must you have some really really poor quality doctors in america if they manage to be one of the top killers...? And if you got rid of doctors many more people would die, so thats just plain silly.

DaveMo~

No, I'm not referring to the quality of doctors (nor cars since that was mentioned, too). The ratio of patients that die to the number that go to doctors is relatively low, but it's still one of the larger "killer" numbers. My point is not to get rid of doctors but to show how "silly" it is to get rid of something that is inanimate because it "kills".

I like to pick on docs because there are other methods of healing besides a drug and a knife. And I ride my horse to work everyday, too!

Fox

I think it's important to screen who gets the guns in the first place, and reprimand those who "lose" their guns...but to ban guns altogether would be much worse. Think of Nazi Germany: the first thing that he did when he got power is take away everybody's guns.

badger

ok, fair point on the doctors.

Fox, I assume by 'he' you mean Hitler? Just because Hitler did something doesn't mean we shouldn't. Hitler probably ate breakfast. He probably ate roast duck. He probably played chess. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

Fox

So I wake up, eat breakfast, play some chess...and roam my neighborhood taking people's guns away? Hitler was evil, not crazy. Somehow I don't think I understand your point.