Would you kill kill an intruder?

[Seperates]

If you're coming into my house via anything but the front door, the first thing you can expect to see is a gun in your face. And if you're in my backyard, you can expect you won't be leaving alive

The moral of the story is: Don't fuck around in the property of paranoid people.

Then you would also be an itg or a psychopath.

[Kreanoltha]

Exactly. You shoot threats. Not people.

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

Your right he's not a threat. Then I walk away to call the cops and he runs or tries to kill me. Then he's a threat again. Do I need to ask you to use a dictionary and some common sense?

[Lessnt]

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

Your right he's not a threat. Then I walk away to call the cops and he runs or tries to kill me. Then he's a threat again. Do I need to ask you to use a dictionary and some common sense?

You tell him to call the cops.

[Des-Bal]

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

Your right he's not a threat. Then I walk away to call the cops and he runs or tries to kill me. Then he's a threat again. Do I need to ask you to use a dictionary and some common sense?[/quote]

He's not a threat once he's surrenderd or attempted to run away castle laws don't protect you any further.

[-Hawaii-]

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

Your right he's not a threat. Then I walk away to call the cops and he runs or tries to kill me. Then he's a threat again. Do I need to ask you to use a dictionary and some common sense?

No. He would not. You wouldn't walk away from a man who just surrendered to you. You'd go to the telephone set, and you'd call the police while looking at the man. Do I need to ask you to use a dictionary and some common sense?

[Kreanoltha]

Your right he's not a threat. Then I walk away to call the cops and he runs or tries to kill me. Then he's a threat again. Do I need to ask you to use a dictionary and some common sense?

You tell him to call the cops.

Put and object in his hands that he could use against me? Great idea...

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Exactly. You shoot threats. Not people.

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

This.

I'm pretty sure saying "I said 'I'm going to let you leave and I won't shoot you' and then I shot him anyways" isn't going to win you any favours in court, and might make you lose a civil case.

Or get arrested for murder.

It's lovely that your logic makes no distinction between an armed robber and a kid walking home from school who decides to take a shortcut through your yard. Really touching that.

I love how you assume that people who wish to defend themselves are unhinged nut jobs who are all out for blood and don't have a modicum of commonsense.

-snip- Also, after you have not shot him and they have surrendered, what then? Walks towards them? Back away to the phone? Just wondered what step 4 is.

True. They're still a threat. I assume I could tie him up, but that is still dangerous. I'd have to use both hands. What's to stop him from fighting back when I put my gun down?

1) Shooting someone without giving them a chance to register a verbal command isn't exactly self-defence. At worst, it's probably murder, at best, it's court fees from when his family sues your ass.

2) Or you could give him a verbal or non-verbal register (racking a shotgun), see if he runs or not. If he turns to face you or raises his weapon, you shoot him.

That's what people who use common sense would do.

[Dukopolious]

It is when you eliminate a man's right to a fair trial.

In my eyes, if you have trespassed against me, you lost your rights to life. You are a threat, and will be dealt with as such. Until I can tell what they are thinking ahead of time, that is how I will act.

Like it was said before (To you?) remind me not to walk across the corner of your property.

I do belive trespassing is very bad, but to loose the rights to life? That's not resonable what so ever, for all you know the person in your house might not be stealign at all, but rather looking for something, like his wallet that he dropped when you tried to shoot him dead when he was trying to sell you door-to-Door insurance.

[Kripplespin]

I was actually thinking about this the other day, and wondering this: just what percentage of breaking and entering is done while the residents are home? How is having a gun going to stop someone who waits until the house is empty? Why are you defending guns with a scenario that assumes all or at least most burglars are too stupid to wait for people to go to work, on vacation, at a funeral, or pretty much use any sense at all besides "guns are dangerous".

The main point of your argument is right, nobody can stop an intruder if he enters when the occupants are out. You are correct on that.
However, the fact that it does and will happen from time to time is a good enough reason for them. There is also the important fact that the criminal can never know if there is really anyone left in the house, short of the owners locking up the place tight in a very obvious way before going onna holiday. The implied threat of force is never really gone.

Then I know what the follow-up secondary argument is; If the numbers don't support it, then why have guns that violate (my) moral principles? At least, this is the vibe I'm getting from the underlined part.

The answer to that is simply that there are few or no drawbacks to having them in the first place, practically, statistically and (rightfully) legally in places where they are allowed. Criminals are hardly affected from any legislation and gun control, and the -why- of that I leave you to just do some Internet research and find out yourself.

Please excuse me if I misinterpreted the point of your post.

[Separatist Peoples]

Exactly. You shoot threats. Not people.

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

Unless he decides to fight after he has "surrendered". You know, after you put the gun down or something? I know I would.

[Seperates]

Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή "psyche", for mind/soul, and -ωσις "-osis", for abnormal condition) means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic. Psychosis is given to the more severe forms of psychiatric disorder, during which hallucinations and delusions and impaired insight may occur.

I am not so sure that fits. This has been bothering me.

Also, after you have not shot him and they have surrendered, what then? Walks towards them? Back away to the phone? Just wondered what step 4 is.

In this case it's delusions of grandeur. However, the 4th step would be to get to a phone, while reminding them that you will shoot to kill if he even makes the slightest wrong move.

[Seperates]

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

Unless he decides to fight after he has "surrendered". You know, after you put the gun down or something? I know I would.

Why the fuck would you put the gun down? And yes, of course an indecent person like you would.

[The Parkus Empire]

Nope. I think just pointing the gun at the chap would be quite enough to persuade him to toddle off. Probably have a chuckle with the fellow as the door shut.

[Kreanoltha]

He is no longer a threat when he has surrendered. Do we need to ask you to see a psycologist?

This.

I'm pretty sure saying "I said 'I'm going to let you leave and I won't shoot you' and then I shot him anyways" isn't going to win you any favours in court, and might make you lose a civil case.

Or get arrested for murder.

I love how you assume that people who wish to defend themselves are unhinged nut jobs who are all out for blood and don't have a modicum of commonsense.



True. They're still a threat. I assume I could tie him up, but that is still dangerous. I'd have to use both hands. What's to stop him from fighting back when I put my gun down?

1) Shooting someone without giving them a chance to register a verbal command isn't exactly self-defence. At worst, it's probably murder, at best, it's court fees from when his family sues your ass.

2) Or you could give him a verbal or non-verbal register (racking a shotgun), see if he runs or not. If he turns to face you or raises his weapon, you shoot him.

That's what people who use common sense would do.

Again, why give him the chance to fight back. He's not a reasonable person. If he was he wouldn't be robbing my home. Also, you just tell the court, "I gave him a warning and he didn't leave." No need to add in those details.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

If you're coming into my house via anything but the front door, the first thing you can expect to see is a gun in your face. And if you're in my backyard, you can expect you won't be leaving alive

The moral of the story is: Don't fuck around in the property of paranoid people.

Then you would also be an itg or a psychopath.

Most people who would kill an intruder seem to think that everyone is out to burglarize or kill them...

[Seperates]

You tell him to call the cops.

Put and object in his hands that he could use against me? Great idea...

Who the fuck is this guy? Chuck Norris?

[Separatist Peoples]

Unless he decides to fight after he has "surrendered". You know, after you put the gun down or something? I know I would.

Why the fuck would you put the gun down? And yes, of course an indecent person like you would.

Indecent my ass. If my life is in danger, you can bet that there isn't anything I wouldn't do to stay alive, including lie. Hell, if I have to bury my thumbs into a stranger's eye sockets to survive, I would. Where do you get off calling me indecent?

As for putting the gun down, I thought I read somewhere about somebody putting a gun down...but even still, they are a threat until they are physically restrained, despite any claims to surrender.

[Lessnt]

You tell him to call the cops.

Put and object in his hands that he could use against me? Great idea...

You cant keep a gun on him as he goes and picks up the phone?

[Seperates]

Nope. I think just pointing the gun at the chap would be quite enough to persuade him to toddle off. Probably have a chuckle with the fellow as the door shut.

Oh thank sweet Jesus Christ, someone sensible is here.

[Kreanoltha]

Unless he decides to fight after he has "surrendered". You know, after you put the gun down or something? I know I would.

Why the fuck would you put the gun down? And yes, of course an indecent person like you would.

I believe you meant, "And yes, of course and human would."

[Lessnt]

Policemen are put in danger every day. They do not shoot every dangerous criminal that points a gun at their face and threatens their life, safety or security.

Yes they do.

They even do that to people who aren't a threat.

Yes well it is your job to move around and fight...not stand there assuming your superman...
No bulletproof vest is gonna be bullet resistant or bulletproof for very long after it starts to sustain damage.

Riot kit isn't bulletproof.

It is bludgeon proof.

Glorified football pads and helmets.

http://www.amazon.com/Knife-Joules-Prot ... d_sbs_sg_4
Anti stab plates for bulletproof vests.
Not total protection but hey life is that way.

[Seperates]

Why the fuck would you put the gun down? And yes, of course an indecent person like you would.

Indecent my ass. If my life is in danger, you can bet that there isn't anything I wouldn't do to stay alive, including lie. Hell, if I have to bury my thumbs into a stranger's eye sockets to survive, I would. Where do you get off calling me indecent?

As for putting the gun down, I thought I read somewhere about somebody putting a gun down...but even still, they are a threat until they are physically restrained, despite any claims to surrender.

Why are you robbing someone's house then? Hmmmm? You've been arguing that only an indecent person who deserves to be shot would rob a house, and now you've created a hypothetical situation where you are robbing a house. So by your own definition you are an indecent person who deserves to be shot.

[-Hawaii-]

Put and object in his hands that he could use against me? Great idea...

You cant keep a gun on him as he goes and picks up the phone?

Why would you make him call the police? You could easily pick it up yourself and still point the gun at him.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

This.

I'm pretty sure saying "I said 'I'm going to let you leave and I won't shoot you' and then I shot him anyways" isn't going to win you any favours in court, and might make you lose a civil case.

Or get arrested for murder.



1) Shooting someone without giving them a chance to register a verbal command isn't exactly self-defence. At worst, it's probably murder, at best, it's court fees from when his family sues your ass.

2) Or you could give him a verbal or non-verbal register (racking a shotgun), see if he runs or not. If he turns to face you or raises his weapon, you shoot him.

That's what people who use common sense would do.

Again, why give him the chance to fight back. He's not a reasonable person. If he was he wouldn't be robbing my home. Also, you just tell the court, "I gave him a warning and he didn't leave." No need to add in those details.

Then you'd be lying, and I'd be worried about your mental state, possibly signs of psychopathy. Compulsive lying, I think that's one of them, along with lack of remorse. Certainly shooting someone without giving them proper time to register a warning is less like "self-defence" and more like "just for the fuck of it".

The correct thing, at least in my state, is to give a verbal warning, and wait for a reply. Either they leave, or they raise their weapon. The latter would necessitate self-defence, the former would necessitate "lol gtfo nub".

Yes they do.

They even do that to people who aren't a threat.



Riot kit isn't bulletproof.

It is bludgeon proof.

Glorified football pads and helmets.

http://www.amazon.com/Knife-Joules-Prot ... d_sbs_sg_4
Anti stab plates for bulletproof vests.
Not total protection but hey life is that way.

Yep.

21 foot rule still applies for officers who aren't using anti-stab vests, or have no vests whatsoever.

[Kreanoltha]

Put and object in his hands that he could use against me? Great idea...

Who the fuck is this guy? Chuck Norris?

Well, it would be stupid to assume he's Jesse Eisenberg...