Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You know what sucks about killing in "self-defense", explained as a home invasion/robbery? Someone has to die because you don't want them to have your shitty 18" Awex color TV and rabbit ears. What sucks is that some people just can't wait to get their gun off because they have some terrible misunderstanding of how humans are supposed to treat other humans. They have no concept of the value of human life. That sucks.
|
^^It's not about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I would like to again say, and agree with those who have said, I would rather than any article of my property taken from me before I would kill a man.
|
^^It's not about this, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin
It is about someone breaking into your house. If they break into your house with a lethal weapon (large knife, firearm) or pose a lethal threat (big man vs. your tiny wife) they should be neutralized. They've already committed two felonies just by showing up in your living room with a weapon.
|
^^getting warmer....
Okay, I've previously had a comment typed out for this thread and deleted it because I didn't feel it was necessary. Clearly it is. There's a huge misconception going on in this thread at the moment - that all gun owners are bloodthirsty and just want to shoot someone for breaking into their house and stealing their stuff.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Responsible gun owners are simply people who have realized that there are people in this world who have no regard for the sanctity of human life. Many of these people are criminals, most of whom are armed, and think the best way of getting ph4t l3wt is to rob someone's house or place of business. These people don't care if you live or die, or how you do so. Need a little reality check? Please watch this video:
Alright, so I'll fess up: I own a handgun right now, and plan on owning at least one more, along with a good rifle. Once I get a CCW permit, I'll be carrying almost every day, helping to deter would be criminals, and generally making the world a safer place with no one the wiser (bless states which are shall-issue).The purpose of these weapons is to STOP, not to KILL. Killing the target may be a consequence of stopping them, but that is something that is a given when using ANY weapon against someone. As soon as there's a weapon created that will instantly shut down the central nervous system of a target with 100% reliability, guaranteed not to kill, and with the capability to follow up in case of misses (what does stress and adrenaline do to
you?), I'll take 3. Until then, I favor a rifle. Guns can kill, dogs can kill, tasers can kill (and have), swords and knives can kill (and are very likely to). If you're not
prepared to
kill someone when using a tool capable of deadly force, you have no business bringing it to a fight, for it is just as likely to be taken from you. If you're not prepared to make that decision should it arise, you will falter, and you will die.
The point I'm trying to make is that I will NOT use lethal force to stop someone from stealing my stuff, or to retrieve said stuff. That's what insurance is for. However, if I'm home, and someone, uninvited, is rummaging through my house or garage, they have made it my business, and I will investigate these felonies being committed on my property. I will be armed, and I will be PREPARED to use lethal force, in case
they escalate the situation. There is NOTHING to stop a criminal with no regard for life from killing somebody just 'cuz. You may give them everything they want, and afterwards they may just as soon injure or kill you, for any reason - a show of strength, to avoid witnesses, just for fun, or for no reason at all. It's impossible to guess the motives of someone who does not think the same as normal human beings. This, in my mind, and in self defense laws, makes their lives immediately less valuable than mine and the lives of others once the intent of lethal force has been shown by them.
Gun owners recognize this - they have made the conscious decision that if someone is threatening them or any other human with lethal force, the necessary action is to STOP them from carrying through with their intentions. We must realize that stopping them has a likely chance of their death, and thus their lives are worth less than the lives of others once force is shown. That was the criminal's decision, and that's sadly the way they made things have to be.
Contrary to popular belief, few, if any, gun owners actually want to pull the trigger on someone - all it means is a world of hassle. The firearm used gets taken away immediately, we're probably arrested, our names get in papers, we must go through legal processes and fees, we may suffer hearing loss from firing said weapon, and our house has had blood shed in it - all of this costs a ton of money and grief, so anyone wanting it to happen to them is just nuts. The thing is, though, we're prepared to go through all that anyway, just to protect life. The ONLY thing that will make me pull the trigger on another human is the threat of equal force.
There is also a side of that video of the Texas shooting which is missing. The media likes to make excuses for not showing the whole story, such as because of violent or traumatic content. The thing is, there's so much violence in our society that we're desensitized to it anyway - they're really deleting these things to influence people's opinions on important issues, like the right to self defense (duh
). The thing about that video is that they didn't show that he went outside with his shotgun, announced his presence loudly and his ability to use force - he didn't just shoot them in the back out of cold blood. After announcing "Move, you're dead." to the robbers, there was a pause, and then the gunshots - it's possible (and likely) that he was acting in
self defense at this point, if the robbers did not respond to his threat and reached for something instead. If so, at this point he was not defending his neighbors property, he was defending himself. Watch the video with shots here:
The only difference between this shooting and the other story in this thread (
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6697.html ) is that it was his neighbors property, and the criminals didn't do EXACTLY what the man wielding the shotgun ordered.
I'll end this post with a quote that I'm especially fond of:
"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized. The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-Jeff Cooper,
The Art of the Rifle