View Full Version : Welcome to the club, Ireland
Residents of the Emerald Isle have gained a remarkably American-style right (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-gun-owners-can-now-shoot-intruders--98813794.html):
Irish homeowners can now legally use guns to defend themselves if their homes are attacked under new legislation.
The new home defense bill has moved the balance of rights back to the house owner if his home is broken into "where it should always have been", say top Irish police.
The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable".
Indeed. The act of protecting yourself should not be criminalized.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-21-2010, 00:50
Residents of the Emerald Isle have gained a remarkably American-style right (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-gun-owners-can-now-shoot-intruders--98813794.html):
Irish homeowners can now legally use guns to defend themselves if their homes are attacked under new legislation.
The new home defense bill has moved the balance of rights back to the house owner if his home is broken into "where it should always have been", say top Irish police.
The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable".
Indeed. The act of protecting yourself should not be criminalized.
I think you'll find this probably means the same thing as the UK though, you can only blow their heads off if they aren't running away from you.
Centurion1
07-21-2010, 04:08
Absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Some creeper steps on my lawn and he doesn't get off when asked to I'm going to shoot his ***.
Mind you I uh wouldn't aim to kill.
Mind you I uh wouldn't aim to kill.
That would be a mistake.
1) If you are going to fire a weapon in anger, go for center mass. Anything else is just Hollywood and will likely get you killed.
2) If you wound, you are likely to get sued. Always put one in the brain. Always. And make sure the body is in the house when the police show up. :yes:
Good for them, more to follow I hope. If I catch a burglar he has more rights than me, completely whack. Judges have become lenient but defending yourself can still get you into trouble as violence weighs heavier than burglary.
HoreTore
07-21-2010, 08:29
I do not support the death penalty for any crime, but I definitely do not support the death penalty for a simple burglary.
I do not support the death penalty for any crime, but I definitely do not support the death penalty for a simple burglary.
Not a death sentence just a risk of the trade. You are unlikely to kill someone with a panic shot anyway. In our current situation it's better to finish the job and get some plastic sheets and a saw.
HoreTore
07-21-2010, 08:43
Not a death sentence just a risk of the trade. You are unlikely to kill someone with a panic shot anyway. In our current situation it's better to finish the job and get some plastic sheets and a saw.
If you kill someone because he was robbing your house, off course you punished him with the death penalty for the crime of robbing a house, there's no other way to explain that.
We already have more than enough rights to protect lives, I do not want a law that allows anyone to sentence people to death at their own whim. There's a reason why we have things like police officers, judges and so on, I would like to keep it that way.
If you kill someone because he was robbing your house, off course you punished him with the death penalty for the crime of robbing a house, there's no other way to explain that.
We already have more than enough rights to protect lives, I do not want a law that allows anyone to sentence people to death at their own whim. There's a reason why we have things like police officers, judges and so on, I would like to keep it that way.
Criminals have them. If you are allowed to shoot there is enough time to call an ambulance, if you aren't yet you had to and said criminal is bleeding to death, would you still call 112? Happy jailtime, bye life bye career
HoreTore
07-21-2010, 09:00
Criminals have them. If you are allowed to shoot there is enough time to call an ambulance, if you aren't yet you had to and said criminal is bleeding to death, would you still call 112? Happy jailtime, bye life bye career
First off, criminals don't have guns. Junkies break into your home usually armed with massive confusion, at best a needle.
Secondly, if your life is in danger, you already have the right to take the steps necessary to preserve life. What laws like this does, is that it allows you to take those same steps not just to protect life, but to protect your TV as well. And I do not value a TV as high as a human life, HD or not. Not even my iPad....
First off, criminals don't have guns. Junkies break into your home usually armed with massive confusion, at best a needle.
Secondly, if your life is in danger, you already have the right to take the steps necessary to preserve life. What laws like this does, is that it allows you to take those same steps not just to protect life, but to protect your TV as well. And I do not value a TV as high as a human life, HD or not. Not even my iPad....
Doesn't have to be a gun, let's say you had to stab or bludgeon and if you don't call an ambulance he's screwed. If you do, you are screwed as you end up completely at the mercy of a judge.
If you have a gun and you are allowed to shoot pointing should be enough and you can calmly call the police. If it isn't enough because he's crazy on drugs or has a gun of himself, would you rather have a baton? Add to that wife plus kids.
It isn't a carte blanche to shoot people dead. It allows reasonable force to be used, including lethal force if deemed appropriate by the courts. The idea being that if you injure or kill the intruder your actions will still see you up in court, where the powers that be will decide whether or not your actions were reasonable. If you shoot dead an unarmed man for stealing your TV then the state will take your liberty.
Of course this may mean that more petty thieves go about their business armed, and thus the level of force used by all parties increases leading to more frequent serious incidents.
rory_20_uk
07-21-2010, 12:37
Blowing away junkies is merely tidying up the gene pool.
There might be a slight decrease in other burglaries as the risk vs gain balance alters. Those that do will expect to meet armed resistance, and will therefore need to be armed and shoot when challenged lest they are.
Personally I think that passive defences should be allowed. No one wants barbed wire strung over their property, but I'm sure if it were allowed more acceptable deterrents would be thought up.
My ex-girlfriend's father was ex-SAS. There the "rule" was - "if you need to fire your gun, make sure they're dead. Then there's only one narrative of events."
~:smoking:
Rhyfelwyr
07-21-2010, 12:47
Burglars lose their rights when they are in the process of taking someone elses.
:ireland: :ireland: :ireland:
Well done the Irish!
:ireland: :ireland: :ireland:
Cute Wolf
07-21-2010, 15:30
If you kill someone because he was robbing your house, off course you punished him with the death penalty for the crime of robbing a house, there's no other way to explain that.
We already have more than enough rights to protect lives, I do not want a law that allows anyone to sentence people to death at their own whim. There's a reason why we have things like police officers, judges and so on, I would like to keep it that way.
First off, criminals don't have guns. Junkies break into your home usually armed with massive confusion, at best a needle.
Secondly, if your life is in danger, you already have the right to take the steps necessary to preserve life. What laws like this does, is that it allows you to take those same steps not just to protect life, but to protect your TV as well. And I do not value a TV as high as a human life, HD or not. Not even my iPad....
I'm sure you never meet with burglars that carrying axes or sickles then, and those who you tought to be unarmed, actually have some sort of knive that could be plugged to your heart when he was "panic" (or want to kill you to cover his tracks)... better safe than sorry...
oh yeah, and if you have experience meet with some burglars or any criminals that enter your home, you can't use force of mere persuassion against him, unless he wasn't a criminal at all...
It isn't a carte blanche to shoot people dead. It allows reasonable force to be used, including lethal force if deemed appropriate by the courts. The idea being that if you injure or kill the intruder your actions will still see you up in court, where the powers that be will decide whether or not your actions were reasonable. If you shoot dead an unarmed man for stealing your TV then the state will take your liberty.
Of course this may mean that more petty thieves go about their business armed, and thus the level of force used by all parties increases leading to more frequent serious incidents.
That's right, I'm actually a bit confused when I see some westerners who said they hold "human rights" highly, try to protect the criminal at the expense of the victim... here, if a burglar broke into our house, we could not only shoot him to stop him, but also delibrately kill him, and you are innocent in the eyes of the law... think of what those criminals could do to your family then, and you'll know that they deserve death.
ICantSpellDawg
07-21-2010, 16:58
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Center mass, all the way. Don't touch the body even if they are outside. Make a racket so that they turn toward you right before you fire.
Use every right that you have at your disposal to do justice, nobody else will on your behalf. If you kill that robber according to the law, you may have saved someone elses life down the line who would have been broken into by the perp and might not be so lucky.
Our "crimal justice" system is for those who escaped justice.
Ser Clegane
07-21-2010, 17:08
If you kill that robber according to the law, you may have saved someone elses life down the line who would have been broken into by the perp and might not be so lucky.
I actually think that I should also be allowed to shoot on sight people who
- violate speed limits
- pass a red light
- use their mobile phone while driving
Might save somebody else's life down the line who might die in a car crash caused by one of those people...
(just to be on the save side: Yes - this is supposed to be sarcasm)
HoreTore
07-21-2010, 19:44
Blowing away junkies is merely tidying up the gene pool.
Funny - I'd say the same about soldiers, but that would give me warning points...
Vladimir
07-21-2010, 19:59
Funny - I'd say the same about soldiers, but that would give me warning points...
So, any idea where to start?
So, any idea where to start?
Not that odd from a pacifist point of view, not that I agree with it but I see no inconsistancy's.
Mind you I uh wouldn't aim to kill.
Aiming in a critical situation with a handgun is incredibly difficult:
"The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979...
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%
It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.
An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached. "
HoreTore
07-21-2010, 20:41
Not that odd from a pacifist point of view, not that I agree with it but I see no inconsistancy's.
Well a lot of the junkies are former soldiers....
Along with other no-good spoiled brats like incest and rape victims, people with PTSD, people who were given too much painkillers by their doctor, people with chronic diseases, etc...
Bunch of low-lives all of them. 9-year olds with the nerve to walk around in skimpy outfits and arouse daddy's magic stick should be shot on sight, I fully agree with Rory on that one.
Vladimir
07-21-2010, 21:01
Well a lot of the junkies are former soldiers....
Along with other no-good spoiled brats like incest and rape victims, people with PTSD, people who were given too much painkillers by their doctor, people with chronic diseases, etc...
Bunch of low-lives all of them. 9-year olds with the nerve to walk around in skimpy outfits and arouse daddy's magic stick should be shot on sight, I fully agree with Rory on that one.
I meant, perhaps, that you could lead by example and martyr yourself for your cause.
Well a lot of the junkies are former soldiers....
Along with other no-good spoiled brats like incest and rape victims, people with PTSD, people who were given too much painkillers by their doctor, people with chronic diseases, etc...
Bunch of low-lives all of them. 9-year olds with the nerve to walk around in skimpy outfits and arouse daddy's magic stick should be shot on sight, I fully agree with Rory on that one.
Has little to do with this besides a territorium thingie
HoreTore
07-21-2010, 21:23
I meant, perhaps, that you could lead by example and martyr yourself for your cause.
Uhm..... Last I checked, I was neither a soldier nor a junkie...
I haven't heard anyone say that math teachers should be killed, so I think I'm okay.
Ser Clegane
07-21-2010, 21:25
Funny - I'd say the same about soldiers, but that would give me warning points...
And the post you are quoting is not really appropriate either.
While I respect the range of views that people might have on the extent of the right of self defense I would appreciate if these views would be expressed without indulging in the inappropraite juvenile killing fantasies that this kind of topic seems to regularly evoke.
Thanks
:bow:
Vladimir
07-21-2010, 21:49
Edit: Must...stop...feeding...trolls...
Centurion1
07-21-2010, 21:53
How can you even argue that soldiers are not good members of the genepool. Your logic makes no sense.
Someone who breaks in my home has no rights he is a criminal and I should be entitled to do whatever I wish to protect my family and goods. I don't care if he dies, at all I feel no pity for those who's livelihood entails taking my rightly purchased goods and potentially harming me and my family.
I was joking about aiming to wound btw.
Ser Clegane
07-21-2010, 22:13
Someone who breaks in my home has no rights he is a criminal and I should be entitled to do whatever I wish to protect my family and goods.
So, at what point - in your opinion - does a criminal lose all his rights and deserves to be shot?
When he breaks into your home, steals stuff and threatens your family?
When he breaks into your home, steals stuff and tries to get out before somebody notices?
The moment he is trespassing?
When he steals something from you outside your home (e.g. a pickpocket)?
When he steals something from you ina more "white collar" way (e.g. fraud)?
Centurion1
07-21-2010, 22:37
Let me clarify that the perfect scenario and the one i would favor is the criminal being appregended and sentenced to prison, not dead. But i should have the right to protect myself.
A. Yes i should be able to shoot him.
B. Yes I should have the right to shoot him.
C. If i give sufficent notice of his impending fate yes i should have legal rights to shoot a man who trespasses upon my property
D. In technicality, yes i should have the right to shoot him if i feel threatened, if for example i am subjected to a mugging. Personally, i probably woudnt shoot a pickpocket.
E. I am not directly threatened by this? There is no threat of physical violence or breaking and entering or physical contact? For example my stockbroker is skimming my profits? No i cannot shoot him and this is a unique case and cant be compared to other thefts which is why it has its own distinctive name. It is also a weak argument and a very common one to this particular debate.
Furunculus
07-21-2010, 22:53
First off, criminals don't have guns. Junkies break into your home usually armed with massive confusion, at best a needle.
Secondly, if your life is in danger, you already have the right to take the steps necessary to preserve life. What laws like this does, is that it allows you to take those same steps not just to protect life, but to protect your TV as well. And I do not value a TV as high as a human life, HD or not. Not even my iPad....
who cares if they have guns, 99.9999999999% of homeowners arn't john claude van damm either, they are overweight middle-aged coach potatoes who in addition to their fear are no match for a criminal. it is their property, they are at the disadvantage, they are in the right, they should have the legal advantage in defending THEIR property and safety.
Hosakawa Tito
07-21-2010, 22:59
Seriously speaking, some of y'all should familiarize yourselves with the penal law in your locality and what conditions have to be met about using deadly physical force. One had better reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of serious physical injury or death about to occur to yourself or a third person...or you're going to have some 'splaining to do and could end up in real trouble.
I applaud Ireland's decision to no longer require a person to retreat from their home when attacked by intruders. A man's home is his castle/sanctuary and self-defense is an inalienable right.
HoreTore
07-22-2010, 06:49
who cares if they have guns, 99.9999999999% of homeowners arn't john claude van damm either, they are overweight middle-aged coach potatoes who in addition to their fear are no match for a criminal. it is their property, they are at the disadvantage, they are in the right, they should have the legal advantage in defending THEIR property and safety.
....And 99.9999999999% of home invasions take place when the owner is gone.
The last 0.000000000001% of home invasion are performed by junkies who barely know where they are. They are no threat to you.
Ok. You shot a man. Won’t speak about the effect of shooting a man on your brain.
You protected your kids, your castle, your property and you have blood and guts, or the brain, of the bugler on your carpet. Or he is still alive and perhaps, but not sure, you call the emergency services. Nice feeling of your victory if you ignore the vomiting of your half.
And, surprise, he is your young girl boy friend (or girl friend of your boy, or what ever sexuality they are) and he/she was just sneaking in/out after what ever they were doing at this age. You know, the neighbour’s kid, the one you had invited for your barbecue…
Too late…
And yes, why to stop to burglars… I was near kill by a driver who was going reverse, in turning and phoning… I want to be able to kill her.
By the way, I think, but need a lawyer here, cars are an extension of your property. So can we kill people stealing it.
Yes? What about hand bag?
What about people who "steal" your job? After all a job is usually worth more than any TV...
But then I also wonder, why shoot without a warning? As far as I know not even police shoot without a warning, if you're going to confront the person at very close range, you're stupid anyway and if they're far enough away you can still shoot if they do not react to your warning or come running at you. Ideally you would have brought your cellphone and keep the person in check with your gun until police arrive. If they try anything funny, shoot. Seems to work for the police. :shrug:
HoreTore
07-22-2010, 09:58
But then I also wonder, why shoot without a warning?
Because men lacking in the penis-department seeks to compensate by other means.
Because men lacking in the penis-department seeks to compensate by other means.
Just because you can doesn't mean you have to, much more likely you don't have to if you can. Doubt the Lemur would kill a burglar for fun, It's just fair that you are allowed to defend yourself, it's probably going to haunt you your whole life if you are sane.
HoreTore
07-22-2010, 11:57
Just because you can doesn't mean you have to, much more likely you don't have to if you can. Doubt the Lemur would kill a burglar for fun, It's just fair that you are allowed to defend yourself, it's probably going to haunt you your whole life if you are sane.
We are allowed to protect ourselves, even by using deadly force if necessary. We are, however, not allowed to use that deadly force to protect stuff made by Sony.
Because, somehow, a human life is valued higher than a TV in most civilized countries. We even value the life of someone who was raped analy by their uncle from age 7 to 12 higher than a TV, and it is not permitted to kill the former to protect the latter.
If you kill a burglar you should be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. People who trust the government to be reasonable always freak me out, if they can screw you they will. Government is something we should be protected from, not by.
I actually think that I should also be allowed to shoot on sight people who
- violate speed limits
- pass a red light
- use their mobile phone while driving
Might save somebody else's life down the line who might die in a car crash caused by one of those people...
(just to be on the save side: Yes - this is supposed to be sarcasm)
I used to hold the same opinion. But...
I don't know the situation in Germany nowadays, but in Belgium, plenty of criminals don't have to do jailtime. It's a public secret that sentences of less than 3 years are no longer carried out, because there's no room in jail. Criminal "youths" hardly get any real punishment at all.
With that in mind, I'm no longer against the right to carry a gun for self defence.
I've always been of the opinion that the government should have the monopoly to use violence. However, with such a priviledge comes the duty to protect your citizens, to ensure their safety and to make sure that those who violate the rules are caught and punished appropriately.
It seems pretty obvious that nowadays, the Belgian government is no longer capable to succeed in that. Therefore, I see no longer a justification for a monopoly on violence for the government. That's the main reason why I'm slowly shifting my position and why I'm no longer against the right to have a gun and the right to use it in self defence. And that's not self defence as in when I'm threatened with fysical violence, but also as in the right to defend your family and property.
A burglar enters my house? With the knowledge that he probably will not get caught and, if he gets caught, there is a high probability that he won't have to do jailtime, I should have the right to shoot him. My property, my family, my safety. And I would shoot on sight; I, for one, would not wait until my dear Mister Burglar would be so kind to make his intentions (Dear sir, are you here to steal a dvd player or do you also wish to rape my wife and kill us?) clear...
Alas, as it is now, the best option nowadays is to keep sleeping when someone breaks in... And hope they don't hurt themselves on their way out, or you might be responsible for not providing them excellent working conditions...
Andres my boy! I fully agree the government has no right to claim the monopoly on violence, they fail to deliver, they are too lazy and too stupid. But a nightmare they can be when that becomes painfully clear, and it's then that they start putting the hurt.
Ser Clegane
07-22-2010, 13:12
I used to hold the same opinion. But...
I don't know the situation in Germany nowadays, but in Belgium, plenty of criminals don't have to do jailtime. It's a public secret that sentences of less than 3 years are no longer carried out, because there's no room in jail. Criminal "youths" hardly get any real punishment at all.
With that in mind, I'm no longer against the right to carry a gun for self defence.
Perhaps my posts have been a bit misleading. I am not against the right of self-defense as such, including the usage of lethal force with e.g. a gun.
I do have a problem with the idea that a thief/burglar automatically has no rights and deserves to be killed, no matter what the situation might be.
It is one thing to protect yourself or your family from physical harm - but you should never get a free pass for executing somebody who leaves your house carrying the TV set he just stole.
The argument that this burglar might actually harm somebody next time is a complete strawman and provides you with an excuse to shoot at pretty much everybody who does something that might harm somebody else down the road.
How can you even argue that soldiers are not good members of the genepool. Your logic makes no sense.
Someone who breaks in my home has no rights he is a criminal and I should be entitled to do whatever I wish to protect my family and goods. I don't care if he dies, at all I feel no pity for those who's livelihood entails taking my rightly purchased goods and potentially harming me and my family.
If you replace "home" with "country" and "criminal" with "soldier", then you might be close to the view point of those who consider soldiers to be useless.
But then I also wonder, why shoot without a warning?
Walking around a dark house with a weapon, all tense and expecting those strange noises to be a dangerous burglar, a lot of people would just lash out at the slightest provocation.
It is one thing to protect yourself or your family from physical harm - but you should never get a free pass for executing somebody who leaves your house carrying the TV set he just stole.
Disagree.
Imho, you're turning the world upside down. The house owner who catches an unknown scumbag walking around in his house is not the criminal here. The burglar is. He has no business breaking into other people's property and he knows that very well. Don't expect me to feel sorry for him if he gets shot. He should've chosen another profession.
That + what I said in my previous post about the government not being able to guarantee the safety and security of its' citizens and to catch and punish criminals appropriately.
It should also be noted that we don't need to underestimate the effect of being the victim of a house breaking. I've had an introduction in victimology many years ago and according to my professor, the most traumatized victims were victims of house breaking. Suprisingly, they were more traumatised than victims of rape or assault. The reason that people who have been victims of house breaking do no longer feel safe in their own home. Apparently, even if you get beaten up or raped on the street, you'll still feel save in your house; victims who were victim in their own house (even it was just stealing and no fyiscal harm)no longer feel safe anywhere.
Ser Clegane
07-22-2010, 14:03
Disagree.
Imho, you're turning the world upside down. The house owner who catches an unknown scumbag walking around in his house is not the criminal here. The burglar is. He has no business breaking into other people's property and he knows that very well. Don't expect me to feel sorry for him if he gets shot. He should've chosen another profession.
Not sure where I said that the burglar is not a crminal but that the guy who catches him is. I think I made rather clear under which circumstances killing a burglar would become a criminal act IMO - when the house-owner shoots him "just" for the breaking in as such.
Some posters here have indicated that they consider it to be quite OK to kill a person who poses no threat to the physical well-being of the house-woner or his family (i.e. somebody who is leaving the scene with the "loot"). This IMO is not self-defense, it is an criminal act. We might have to agree to disagree on this point.
Again, I would like to bring up the guy who poses a risk in traffic. Risking the lifes of other by e.g., speeding is certainly a personal choice. When I am driving on the Autobahn with my wive and somebody makes a risky maneuver to get past us, would it be OK for me to shot and kill him for putting my wive and myself into danger? He knowingly violated a law.
On the traumatization point - did the professor also have information on how traumatized people who caught the buglar and killed him were?
Don't get me wrong - I do not doubt that being the victim of a burglary is a highly traumatizing experience, I am just not sure if killing the burglar will really help here.
Not sure where I said that the burglar is not a crminal but that the guy who catches him is. I think I made rather clear under which circumstances killing a burglar would become a criminal act IMO - when the house-owner shoots him "just" for the breaking in as such.
Some posters here have indicated that they consider it to be quite OK to kill a person who poses no threat to the physical well-being of the house-woner or his family (i.e. somebody who is leaving the scene with the "loot"). This IMO is not self-defense, it is an criminal act. We might have to agree to disagree on this point.
If he doesn't stop when I yell at him and waits until the police arrives, then yeah, I think I should have the right to stop him on his way out. If he choses to force me to use a gun to stop him, even after I've warned him that I will shoot, then so be it. I've read bloody enough newspaper articles about people who are sentenced but don't go to jail because there's no room. Or about jewellers who have been robbed and fysically harmed several times and the police not being able to catch the criminals, who then decide to buy and use a gun, then use it on the 8th robbery and are being prosecuted for it. Meh.
Agree to disagree is fine.
Again, I would like to bring up the guy who poses a risk in traffic. Risking the lifes of other by e.g., speeding is certainly a personal choice. When I am driving on the Autobahn with my wive and somebody makes a risky maneuver to get past us, would it be OK for me to shot and kill him for putting my wive and myself into danger? He knowingly violated a law.
Isn't starting to shoot from your car while driving on the Autobahn at about 130 km/h also dangerous? Eventually, some other guy will have the right to start shooting at you and before you know it, selling armored cars will be big business in Germany.
~;)
Meh, I think you should have the right to destroy his car with a giant hammer while he's being forced to watch. That seems about the best punishment for jerks in traffic.
On the traumatization point - did the professor also have information on how traumatized people who caught the buglar and killed him were?
No.
Don't get me wrong - I do not doubt that being the victim of a burglary is a highly traumatizing experience, I am just not sure if killing the burglar will really help here.
Fair point :bow:
My opinion is largely influenced by me being fed up with our failing justice system. If the government is incapable, then I should at least have the right to do it myself. That doesn't mean I think I am capable of pulling the trigger, but I should at least have the right to enforce what the government apparently can't (doesn't want?) to enforce.
A couple of semi-random thoughts:
The police cannot and should not be everywhere. And honestly, for the police to be able to guarantee that they will protect you from bad/crazy people, they would need to be ubiquitous. This is why the law is established and settled here in the U.S.A.: The police have no legal responsibility to you in particular. They have a general responsibility to do their jobs and work for the common welfare, but the resident of 300 E. Citizen's Street can't sue the police for not being there to protect his house on Tuesday. That's not how it works.
So the obligation for your health, safety and preservation falls on you.
If an intruder or group of intruders break into your home while you and/or your family are home, it may be very difficult to determine what they're after. How do you discern the difference between a common thief and a couple of guys who are doing a rape/murder vacation? Do you ask, and hope for an honest answer?
I agree that nobody should declare open season on housebreakers, but at the same time I think every benefit of doubt should be applied to the homeowner. That person is protecting their home, family and self. The housebreaker, on the other hand, is knowingly jeopardizing their own life and the lives of others by using force to enter another family's residence. Much less room for lenience here.
Anyway, I am not a lawyer, as should be blatantly obvious by this rambling.
Ser Clegane
07-22-2010, 14:35
Perhaps to elaborate a bit more on my view.
I think it is very important to distinguish between shooting the burglar because you feel genuinely threatened and shooting him because you have the right to do so.
If the law allows you to kill the burglar even when he is obviously leaving the scene*, it gives you IMO too much freedom to kill without actually being threatened, but for bweing really upset about what happened.
* it has been rightly pointed out that often the law does not give you that level of "freedom" but it seems that a number of poster would appreciate having it.
A couple of semi-random thoughts:
The police cannot and should not be everywhere. And honestly, for the police to be able to guarantee that they will protect you from bad/crazy people, they would need to be ubiquitous. This is why the law is established and settled here in the U.S.A.: The police have no legal responsibility to you in particular. They have a general responsibility to do their jobs and work for the common welfare, but the resident of 300 E. Citizen's Street can't sue the police for not being there to protect his house on Tuesday. That's not how it works.
That's a fair statement.
So the obligation for your health, safety and preservation falls on you.
The logical consequence of that line of thought is that I should have the right to protect those. But I'm not a martial artist; so without a gun, I can't defend myself properly against a criminal. Basically, by not allowing me to carry a gun, the government denies me the right to protect myself.
The situation now is that I cannot defend myself (without a gun, I can't. I may have the right of self defense, but if I'm only allowed to use my hands, that "right" is pretty empty). I would dare to go even further: by not allowing me to carry a loaded gun, the government forbids me to protect myself.
If an intruder or group of intruders break into your home while you and/or your family are home, it may be very difficult to determine what they're after. How do you discern the difference between a common thief and a couple of guys who are doing a rape/murder vacation? Do you ask, and hope for an honest answer?
Indeed.
I agree that nobody should declare open season on housebreakers, but at the same time I think every benefit of doubt should be applied to the homeowner. That person is protecting their home, family and self. The housebreaker, on the other hand, is knowingly jeopardizing their own life and the lives of others by using force to enter another family's residence. Much less room for lenience here.
Fully agree.
Ser Clegane
07-22-2010, 14:44
I agree that nobody should declare open season on housebreakers, but at the same time I think every benefit of doubt should be applied to the homeowner. That person is protecting their home, family and self. The housebreaker, on the other hand, is knowingly jeopardizing their own life and the lives of others by using force to enter another family's residence. Much less room for lenience here.
Agree with that - give the right of self-defense but not the assurance that you will get an automatic free pass to kill any burglar.
If you know that you have the right to defend yourself when threatened, you will make use of that right when you feel genuinely threatened (if you really feel that your family is at risk you will most probably not think about that a court might disagree with your assessment of the threat-level)
Furunculus
07-22-2010, 14:50
Ok. You shot a man. Won’t speak about the effect of shooting a man on your brain.
You protected your kids, your castle, your property and you have blood and guts, or the brain, of the bugler on your carpet. Or he is still alive and perhaps, but not sure, you call the emergency services. Nice feeling of your victory if you ignore the vomiting of your half.
And, surprise, he is your young girl boy friend (or girl friend of your boy, or what ever sexuality they are) and he/she was just sneaking in/out after what ever they were doing at this age. You know, the neighbour’s kid, the one you had invited for your barbecue…
Too late…
And yes, why to stop to burglars… I was near kill by a driver who was going reverse, in turning and phoning… I want to be able to kill her.
By the way, I think, but need a lawyer here, cars are an extension of your property. So can we kill people stealing it.
Yes? What about hand bag?
ridiculous straw man.
If you kill a person because of property you are an idiot, you might have to kill someone because he wants your property, bit of a distinction chez Frag
Furunculus
07-22-2010, 14:57
Agree with that - give the right of self-defense but not the assurance that you will get an automatic free pass to kill any burglar.
If you know that you have the right to defend yourself when threatened, you will make use of that right when you feel genuinely threatened (if you really feel that your family is at risk you will most probably not think about that a court might disagree with your assessment of the threat-level)
On the traumatization point - did the professor also have information on how traumatized people who caught the buglar and killed him were?
Don't get me wrong - I do not doubt that being the victim of a burglary is a highly traumatizing experience, I am just not sure if killing the burglar will really help here.
a reasonable PoV.
i'm sure killing a burglar is very traumatic, but it is a choice you chose to make, not one inflicted on you by someone to had no right to be in your house and intended harm.
The logical consequence of that line of thought is that I should have the right to protect those. But I'm not a martial artist; so without a gun, I can't defend myself properly against a criminal. Basically, by not allowing me to carry a gun, the government denies me the right to protect myself.
The situation now is that I cannot defend myself (without a gun, I can't. I may have the right of self defense, but if I'm only allowed to use my hands, that "right" is pretty empty). I would dare to go even further: by not allowing me to carry a loaded gun, the government forbids me to protect myself.
Hmm. Well, this is why open-carry and concealed-carry laws are so popular on this side of the pond. If you accept that you are responsible for your own protection, you wind up wanting the best tools available.
Now, that said, in the vast majority of life-threatening situations, a gun is useless. Flip you car into a strem? A gun is dead weight. Wake up with smoke pouring from under your bedroom door? Gun's no good. Wife runs off with a Swedish gymnastics team and sues you for everything you have? Gun ain't gonna help.
The situations in which direct physical force are required are (blessedly) few.* And if you are smart and avoid, oh, drug dealers, psychotic relatives, crazy women, crazy men, and other people who generally give you the impression that they're going to be a hot mess of trouble, you can improve your odds even more.
But like I said, at the end of it all your preservation is up to you. Maybe that means a gun, maybe that means slowing down when driving in the rain, maybe that means not marrying a crazy person. But whatever it means, the law should err on the side of allowing you to preserve your life and health from those who may mean you harm.
*Unless, of course, you are a soldier or police officer, in which case physical force is part of your paycheck.
a reasonable PoV.
i'm sure killing a burglar is very traumatic, but it is a choice you chose to make, not one inflicted on you by someone to had no right to be in your house and intended harm.
Can also make too much out of it, my castle ok, my sanctuary no.
Centurion1
07-22-2010, 16:39
Ok. You shot a man. Won’t speak about the effect of shooting a man on your brain.
You protected your kids, your castle, your property and you have blood and guts, or the brain, of the bugler on your carpet. Or he is still alive and perhaps, but not sure, you call the emergency services. Nice feeling of your victory if you ignore the vomiting of your half.
And, surprise, he is your young girl boy friend (or girl friend of your boy, or what ever sexuality they are) and he/she was just sneaking in/out after what ever they were doing at this age. You know, the neighbour’s kid, the one you had invited for your barbecue…
Too late…
And yes, why to stop to burglars… I was near kill by a driver who was going reverse, in turning and phoning… I want to be able to kill her.
By the way, I think, but need a lawyer here, cars are an extension of your property. So can we kill people stealing it.
Yes? What about hand bag?
Absolutely ridiculous, i dont have a son or daughter.
If you replace "home" with "country" and "criminal" with "soldier", then you might be close to the view point of those who consider soldiers to be useless.
Do you understand what a gene pool is? It has nothing to do with the nessecity of your job. Soldiers are on average smarter and more physically capable than the average person as well as genetically less prone to mental conditions (you do not inherit ptsd), mostly as a result of an actual screening process for you to become one. As a result Soldiers are good for the gene pool.
Now im sure many of you conform to ridiculous notions of soldiers idiocy and simplemindedness, when any of you can fly a jet or navigate a submarine come and talk to me.
And you can go live in your private utopia of no violence miotas, ill live in my unfortunate world of force and war and count myself lucky i have soldiers to protect me and my family.
HoreTore
07-22-2010, 17:03
Absolutely ridiculous, i dont have a son or daughter.
If anybody was wondering, this is what a FAIL looks like.
Centurion1
07-22-2010, 17:11
Oh no my feelings are so hurt im going to cry.
HoreTore
07-22-2010, 17:18
Oh no my feelings are so hurt im going to cry.
I'm sorry.
Anyway, Brenus' point remains as valid whether or not you have produced any offspring. In fact, his point doesn't involve offspring, that was just an example he gave to illustrate his point.
If anybody was wondering, this is what a FAIL looks like.
See real madness looks like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFpYc_mUqCQ
Centurion1
07-22-2010, 17:28
Anyway, Brenus' point remains as valid whether or not you have produced any offspring. In fact, his point doesn't involve offspring, that was just an example he gave to illustrate his point.
Its a strawman
Crazed Rabbit
07-22-2010, 17:34
Agree with that - give the right of self-defense but not the assurance that you will get an automatic free pass to kill any burglar.
If you know that you have the right to defend yourself when threatened, you will make use of that right when you feel genuinely threatened (if you really feel that your family is at risk you will most probably not think about that a court might disagree with your assessment of the threat-level)
I disagree. A homeowner should have the right to defend themselves and their home with any force necessary. Which means a free pass to kill anyone breaking in.
A person in their own home should not have to guess and worry about whether the law is going to punish them for defending themselves.
Burglars are people too, of course, and their lives have value. But like Andres said, worrying about their rights when they break into a home of another person to violate them by stealing or worse is backwards. We should not be concerned foremost with the rights of those who are violating the rights of others.
The situation now is that I cannot defend myself (without a gun, I can't. I may have the right of self defense, but if I'm only allowed to use my hands, that "right" is pretty empty). I would dare to go even further: by not allowing me to carry a loaded gun, the government forbids me to protect myself.
:bow:
CR
Ser Clegane
07-22-2010, 18:01
A person in their own home should not have to guess and worry about whether the law is going to punish them for defending themselves.
Either you feel threatened enough to use lethal force or not. If the law covers actual self-defense I highly doubt that you will consider legal implications before defending you and your family from an actual threat.
Not giving you carte blanche to kill any intruder, however might make you think twice before shooting the guy because he stole your TV and because it is your right to do so. And from some of the reactions in this thread I figure that there would indeed be people ready to shoot some "scum" even without a realistic danger of being physically harmed.
I am entitled to kill whomever happens to find himself in my house without being invited.
Crazed Rabbit
07-22-2010, 18:09
Either you feel threatened enough to use lethal force or not. If the law covers actual self-defense I highly doubt that you will consider legal implications before defending you and your family from an actual threat.
Not giving you carte blanche to kill any intruder, however might make you think twice before shooting the guy because he stole your TV and because it is your right to do so.
Of course the law isn't that simple. What if the police and prosecuting attorney decide that you weren't threatened enough to use lethal force in a situation, even though you thought you were and shot the intruder?
Then you will have to defend yourself in court and face the possibility of going to jail for what you thought was justified, because people who weren't there didn't like what you did. And what if the person you shot didn't die, and decides to testify and lie against you? You could be thrown in prison longer than the real criminal.
CR
Ser Clegane
07-22-2010, 18:21
Of course the law isn't that simple. What if the police and prosecuting attorney decide that you weren't threatened enough to use lethal force in a situation, even though you thought you were and shot the intruder?
And that is (IMHO) a risk that somebody who is willing to use lethal force should be ready to take. That is where our views might simply differ. There should be a risk of conseqúneces when you kill somebody.
From your posts in the "police abuse" thead I figured that you were not so much in favor of people pulling the trigger just to be on the safe side and then not having to face consequences.
Crazed Rabbit
07-22-2010, 18:38
And that is (IMHO) a risk that somebody who is willing to use lethal force should be ready to take. That is where our views might simply differ. There should be a risk of conseqúneces when you kill somebody.
From your posts in the "police abuse" thead I figured that you were not so much in favor of people pulling the trigger just to be on the safe side and then not having to face consequences.
It doesn't seem right to me that a person should face risks based on the whims or feelings of law enforcement, unrelated to whether they shot a person in self defense or not. Risks should be based on what a person actually did, not the whims of the state.
And the incidents in the police abuse thread are far removed from what we're talking about here. One incident involved a policeman chasing after, across several city streets, and killing a college student who rang his doorbell in the middle of the night.
CR
“Its a strawman”:
That is easy way for not answering the point.
What if you kill somebody innocent?
What if in using a too powerful bullet you hit the neighbour? Will it give the neighbour family the right to kill you?
“If you kill a burglar you should be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around”
You claim for the presumption of innocence but you don’t give it to your potential victim. Remember that property is a very large notion.
“Which means a free pass to kill anyone breaking in.” You will kill a lot of people just crossing a field because they wanted a short cut or are lost…
Happened to me: Was a little bit drunk, tried to open the wrong car (to be fair to me, I just bought it)… Thanks whom you want, the real owner didn’t think he had the right to kill without knowing what was happening….
“A person in their own home should not have to guess and worry about whether the law is going to punish them for defending themselves.” No, but they should be worried if they use a disproportionate force in doing it…
Freedom to kill is not the way. Because YOU decide WHEN and WHY you kill.
Even you will probably miss anyway as to shoot a person even at close range is not easy.
Thanks to modern building you will probably hit some others completely innocent by passers.
“If you replace "home" with "country" and "criminal" with "soldier", then you might be close to the view point of those who consider soldiers to be useless.” Soldiers are sent by a State that has the right to use legitimate violence. Soldiers don’t decide when to go to war and which targets to aim to… They have rules of engagement…
You all forget there are levels in dishonesty.
To kill a burglar,… why not if you kill a pickpocket or who ever YOU decide is a danger for your family/property/honour and what ever your society declared sacred.
So, if you kill a suspected burglar without trial, you have to expect to give some explanation in front of a court that will decide if you were right. If you were, well, good for you.
If you killed somebody who was not anymore a menace it is murder and you will be sentenced for it. As a soldier killing a enemy who surrender will be, if you still want to compare...
“victims who were victim in their own house (even it was just stealing and no physical harm)no longer feel safe anywhere.” And they will feel so much better after having killed some one…
You hang around with some friends and just say: “Oh, by the way, Friday I killed a burglar in my house. He deserved it, indeed… I feel really safe in my house now…”
“Oh no my feelings are so hurt I am going to cry.”:
If one day I hope you will never have, you see a dead body you may.
Let's take the atomic bomb, you can, but you don't have to.
Centurion1
07-22-2010, 19:02
Ill probably see plenty of bodies killed in gruesome ways. I'm in the army
Crazed Rabbit
07-22-2010, 19:13
“If you kill a burglar you should be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around”
You claim for the presumption of innocence but you don’t give it to your potential victim. Remember that property is a very large notion.
It's easy to tell the burglar is guilty of breaking in because THEY ARE IN YOUR HOUSE. :wall:
“Which means a free pass to kill anyone breaking in.” You will kill a lot of people just crossing a field because they wanted a short cut or are lost…
Happened to me: Was a little bit drunk, tried to open the wrong car (to be fair to me, I just bought it)… Thanks whom you want, the real owner didn’t think he had the right to kill without knowing what was happening….
People are going to cross fields and take shortcuts into a person's house?
Thanks to modern building you will probably hit some others completely innocent by passers.
The empirical evidence from the US says that is false.
CR
HoreTore
07-22-2010, 19:27
It's easy to tell the burglar is guilty of breaking in because THEY ARE IN YOUR HOUSE. :wall:
The boy who snuck in to have sex with your dauther is also IN YOUR HOUSE. Along with plenty of others, including a friend of mine a few weeks ago, who got extremely drunk and thought she was breaking into her own hosue when she was in fact breaking into a house in Denmark. Now, since the danes are friendly folks, they helped her back home. In your world, she would likely be dead.
People are going to cross fields and take shortcuts into a person's house?
Centurion wants the right to murder people for standing on his lawn.
... In your world, she would likely be dead...
Making the world a better place minus one person at a time.
“Ill probably see plenty of bodies killed in gruesome ways. I'm in the army” And? Was in the army (5 years) never seen a corps. Saw them later… And if you do and don’t want to cry in seen bodies, you are in the wrong job…
“It's easy to tell the burglar is guilty of breaking in because THEY ARE IN YOUR HOUSE” And? I had people I didn’t know they were there in the middle of the night as they were invited by my teenage stepdaughter…
Mind I would have been better in killing them to tell the truth. However they were not burglars…
“People are going to cross fields and take shortcuts into a person's house?” Never happened to you?
“The empirical evidence from the US says that is false.” Can you have a look at the effect of 5.56 mm on a modern wall?
I had the demo when I joined the army, as where you are not protected from enemy fire under: wall, wood, piece of metal, and look at the effect of a bullet in a helmet if you don’t low your head down enough…
So, except in the US you build special bulletproof walls (even inside), your bullet will go through.
Because the lat time I check my English House walls, the bricks are around 10 cm thick. So a bullet will see my neighbours. And probably their neighbours…
Ser Clegane
07-22-2010, 19:57
It doesn't seem right to me that a person should face risks based on the whims or feelings of law enforcement, unrelated to whether they shot a person in self defense or not. Risks should be based on what a person actually did, not the whims of the state.
It should not be at the whim of law enforcement but at the "whim" of the jurisdiction (i.e. judge and - in the US - the jury).
Regarding the willingness to to take the risk - I prefer to take the risk of being the subject of a (potential) failure of the legal system when the court(!) disagrees with my assessment (and they might be right with that) in exchange for minimizing the risk of my family and myself being on the receiving end when some guy who feels entitled to kill anybody who steps on his lawn or looks threatening pulls the trigger (for he might think twice before doing so when he knows that he might actually be held responsible for his actions)
And the incidents in the police abuse thread are far removed from what we're talking about here. One incident involved a policeman chasing after, across several city streets, and killing a college student who rang his doorbell in the middle of the night.
CR
I was more thinking about cases like the dangerous old lady in bed (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?113539-Police-abuses&p=2516988&viewfull=1#post2516988) - after all, the cops said she threatened them. Perhaps they should have shot her instead of just tazering her (would have had the advantage that she could not have testified against them)
.... Can you have a look at the effect of 5.56 mm on a modern wall?
I had the demo when I joined the army, as where you are not protected from enemy fire under: wall, wood, piece of metal, and look at the effect of a bullet in a helmet if you don’t low your head down enough…
So, except in the US you build special bulletproof walls (even inside), your bullet will go through.
Because the lat time I check my English House walls, the bricks are around 10 cm thick. So a bullet will see my neighbours. And probably their neighbours…
5.56 is an assault rifle caliber. Home defense firearms are mostly 9 mm pistols and various shotguns for which any wall would be an adequate protection. Also, anyone owning an assault rifle is pretty much guaranteed to own some lighter firearms for home defense.
Ironside
07-22-2010, 20:16
Do you understand what a gene pool is? It has nothing to do with the nessecity of your job. Soldiers are on average smarter and more physically capable than the average person as well as genetically less prone to mental conditions (you do not inherit ptsd), mostly as a result of an actual screening process for you to become one. As a result Soldiers are good for the gene pool.
Now im sure many of you conform to ridiculous notions of soldiers idiocy and simplemindedness, when any of you can fly a jet or navigate a submarine come and talk to me.
And you can go live in your private utopia of no violence miotas, ill live in my unfortunate world of force and war and count myself lucky i have soldiers to protect me and my family.
Please explain to me how you improve the genepool by picking the "best and the brightest" on a job that often involves dying before getting children (or to a lesser degree leave the usually very young children low on parents)?
And becoming a soldier does not improve your genes, so even with a big screening, soldiers are not good for the genepool, as their genes would still exist if they were civilians. :juggle2:
Meneldil
07-22-2010, 20:27
I'm torn on the issue.
I'm personnally in favor of kicking the butt of anyone stepping on my property. Last time it happened (some kids were throwing stuff into my garden and swimming pool), I went out with a staff and scared the crap out of them. If they hadn't ran away, I'd probably have tried to beat them hard just to teach them a lesson. Quite obviously, they didn't deserve it: it took me 5 minutes to remove the branches and stones they threw, and I sure made worse things when I was a kid.
I knew it was just a bunch of 15 year old kiddos being stupid, yet I really wanted to beat the crap out of them. Because of some petty bourgeoisie mind set that told me "My property = my law". Hopefully, society doesn't quite work like that, and just entering someone's land doesn't mean they have a carte blanche to kill you. Or I would have been killed before turning ten.
I really don't know where you got the idea that "self-defense" = "killing everyone I spot in my lawn". As you may have notified, the term "defense" implies that you're or have been threatened. Shooting at someone who stole your TV certainly isn't self-defense. As Hore Tore said, we value human life higher than your TV or my swimming pool.
I'm torn on the issue.
I'm personnally in favor of kicking the butt of anyone stepping on my property. Last time it happened (some kids were throwing stuff into my garden and swimming pool), I went out with a staff and scared the crap out of them. If they hadn't ran away, I'd probably have tried to beat them hard just to teach them a lesson. Quite obviously, they didn't deserve it: it took me 5 minutes to remove the branches and stones they threw, and I sure made worse things when I was a kid.
I knew it was just a bunch of 15 year old kiddos being stupid, yet I really wanted to beat the crap out of them. Because of some petty bourgeoisie mind set that told me "My property = my law". Hopefully, society doesn't quite work like that, and just entering someone's land doesn't mean they have a carte blanche to kill you. Or I would have been killed before turning ten.
I really don't know where you got the idea that "self-defense" = "killing everyone I spot in my lawn". As you may have notified, the term "defense" implies that you're or have been threatened. Shooting at someone who stole your TV certainly isn't self-defense. As Hore Tore said, we value human life higher than your TV or my swimming pool.
Trespassing on your land might not be a good reason to open fire (in fact, it's illegal in many states), however once you break into somebody's home, the owner has a right to turn you into a human strainer. Even in liberal Michigan I am allowed to to shoot any intruder inside my house. If the intruder turns tail and runs, the bullet better catch him before he reaches the porch, otherwise I'll be in trouble. Oh and as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, shoot to kill. If you don't plan to kill, do not pull the trigger.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-22-2010, 20:43
What the law should allow may very well be different from what a person should do. I agree with the comments about not shooting someone just because they are stealing your tv. If you care that much about it you should have taken the back off and put a gps device in there (cost less than a gun I bet). Or a security camera system. You shouldn't shoot someone from stealing your possessions (remember that property as in "life, liberty, in property" is more about things like you land that you grow the crops on that allow you to stay self-sufficient...not about luxury or easily replaceable things) if they aren't things worth enough to you that you've taken all the precautions to protect them that you could.
a friend of mine a few weeks ago, who got extremely drunk and thought she was breaking into her own hosue when she was in fact breaking into a house in Denmark. Now, since the danes are friendly folks, they helped her back home. In your world, she would likely be dead.Making the world a better place minus one person at a time.
Jesus christ dude.
What the law should allow may very well be different from what a person should do. I agree with the comments about not shooting someone just because they are stealing your tv. If you care that much about it you should have taken the back off and put a gps device in there (cost less than a gun I bet). Or a security camera system. You shouldn't shoot someone from stealing your possessions (remember that property as in "life, liberty, in property" is more about things like you land that you grow the crops on that allow you to stay self-sufficient...not about luxury or easily replaceable things) if they aren't things worth enough to you that you've taken all the precautions to protect them that you could.
It's not about the TV or whatever the heck else the thief is trying to steal. It's about refusing to be a victim. It's about putting the fear of God into the perp and his ilk. That way somebody else might think twice about breaking into someone else's house, as there's a chance that he'll have to eat a slug full of buckshot for that plasma TV.
Oh and as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, shoot to kill. If you don't plan to kill, do not pull the trigger.
And if you don't think you can shoot in this situation, don't even bring out the gun. It is an escalation, and without the will to use it you just endanger yourself.
“5.56 is an assault rifle calibre. Home defence firearms are mostly 9 mm pistols and various shotguns for which any wall would be an adequate protection.”
True. But if you claim you have the right to kill, you can at least have the right weapon to do so.
Then, the 7.62 mm calibre is an Assault Riffle Calibre as well as hunting one. This one has a huge range (efficiency /killing power) at 1.2 km, if memory serves… Walls have no luck, even in USA.
“Oh and as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, shoot to kill. If you don't plan to kill, do not pull the trigger.”
Well, except in movie, in a panic situation, people just shoot vaguely in the direction of the target, especially a moving one. So, just shoot then go for the result and hope you just destroy the TV you wanted to protect…
And that you missed your wife’s grandmother vase that was on the chimney…
Man, I trained soldiers for this kind of things, and you would be amazed to see how many missed an inoffensive and immobile target at 10 m.
As mentioned, most of the house guns are in fact hand weapons and they are not so easy to master. Myself, I was not too good at it.
Now, give me a light machine gun or an Assault Riffle FAMAS… Or a 20 mm canon…
Now, if somebody clearly is a menace for my life or my family, of course I will defend and shoot. The fact that I have no weapon will oblige me to be a little bit more inventive…
Now, the possession of a weapon will increase drastically the chance to kill for nothing. You might kill because somebody came in your kitchen, but when having the time to think 5 mn, you would find a TV is not worth of a life.
“It's about putting the fear of God into the perp and his ilk” That is a dream. In the 19th Century, in UK, you could be hanged for having blackened you face and going to collect the dry wood in the Lords forests. Did people stop to do it? Nope. They armed themselves and killed the Lord who tried to kill them…
If I am a professional burglar, I go when people are not there… And I will be prepared for violence, so if I can’t escape and I will be faster than you and you gun in your nighties, with the wife and kids dead of fear… And probably better equipped…
5.56 and 7.62 is overkill and totally unnecessary in CQC of a house. Oh, and 10 m is waaay far. Try 5 - 10 ft. Now point a shotgun or a Glock 18 (on full auto) at at something 5 ft away from you and try to miss. You don't even need to aim, just point in the general direction; the spread will do the rest. As for the burglar who while armed to the teeth in the dead of the night breaks into an occupied to steal a TV .... I doubt that happens. There are far softer targets than that.
Walking around a dark house with a weapon, all tense and expecting those strange noises to be a dangerous burglar, a lot of people would just lash out at the slightest provocation.
They're weak and not fit to be given the right to own a gun. ~;)
HoreTore
07-23-2010, 01:43
5.56 and 7.62 is overkill and totally unnecessary in CQC of a house. Oh, and 10 m is waaay far. Try 5 - 10 ft. Now point a shotgun or a Glock 18 (on full auto) at at something 5 ft away from you and try to miss. You don't even need to aim, just point in the general direction; the spread will do the rest. As for the burglar who while armed to the teeth in the dead of the night breaks into an occupied to steal a TV .... I doubt that happens. There are far softer targets than that.
It's not about the TV or whatever the heck else the thief is trying to steal. It's about refusing to be a victim. It's about putting the fear of God into the perp and his ilk. That way somebody else might think twice about breaking into someone else's house, as there's a chance that he'll have to eat a slug full of buckshot for that plasma TV.
The real fun, is of course if the homeowner FAILS, and instead of killing the burglar ends up dead instead.
So to avoid losing a TV, he now lost his life. Sounds like a great deal!
No. Stuff can be replaced, lives cannot, neither yours nor that of the incest-victim you're planning to kill. Much better to remember that the best form of self-defenses "never be in the situation in the first place".
But why all this hate against people raped by daddy anyway?
I am entitled to kill whomever happens to find himself in my house without being invited.
How do they prove that you invited them once they're dead?
But why all this hate against people raped by daddy anyway?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
HoreTore
07-23-2010, 10:07
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Junkies, and criminals in general for that matter, were usually raped by daddy around the age of 7.
Junkies, and criminals in general for that matter, were usually raped by daddy around the age of 7.
Oh please. As if every burglar is a poor victim of his own youth, of the bad treatment he got by society and yadda yadda. What a ridiculous argumentation.
Why are you not advocating to get rid of all criminal laws because all criminals are poor victims of "the system" or "a difficult youth" or "grown up in poverty" while you're at it? Let's change the poor house breakers' diaper, give him his milk and carry him to a bed instead of giving him the harsh punishment he deserves.
You're advocating what we call in Belgium "diaper policy".
Djeez.
rory_20_uk
07-23-2010, 10:23
Those that argue that the cycle is early trauma leading to poor performance at school, early pregnancy, prison / bad job and then a bad parent never go on to propose ending the cycle by preventing this lot from breeding...
~:smoking:
Centurion1
07-23-2010, 19:00
thats bull hockey horetore.
Crazed Rabbit
07-23-2010, 21:44
The boy who snuck in to have sex with your dauther is also IN YOUR HOUSE. Along with plenty of others, including a friend of mine a few weeks ago, who got extremely drunk and thought she was breaking into her own hosue when she was in fact breaking into a house in Denmark. Now, since the danes are friendly folks, they helped her back home. In your world, she would likely be dead.
In my world, I helped some drunk, lost college freshman who wandered into a friend's house at midnight get home.
It should not be at the whim of law enforcement but at the "whim" of the jurisdiction (i.e. judge and - in the US - the jury).
Regarding the willingness to to take the risk - I prefer to take the risk of being the subject of a (potential) failure of the legal system when the court(!) disagrees with my assessment (and they might be right with that) in exchange for minimizing the risk of my family and myself being on the receiving end when some guy who feels entitled to kill anybody who steps on his lawn or looks threatening pulls the trigger (for he might think twice before doing so when he knows that he might actually be held responsible for his actions)
Someone who shoots a person in their house, in legal self defense, will still be scrutinized. And here in the US, the cases of trigger happy people shooting someone on their lawn are so low as to be statistically insignificant. As in, a couple per year in a nation of 300 million people.
I do favor allowing homeowners to use any force they deem necessary on someone who's broken into their home. That doesn't mean they should, but they should have that legal right. It's the criminal that puts themselves in that position, where the homeowner doesn't know what crime he intends.
Also - on bullet penetration. I wouldn't worry so much about neighbors (of course, I don't live in an apartment complex) as much as people in the same house.
Bullets and buckshot from shotguns will penetrate interior walls easily (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOUyLz8Rsr8).
Junkies, and criminals in general for that matter, were usually raped by daddy around the age of 7.
Surely you must be joking. If not, I'd be interested in the empirical evidence that a majority of criminals and junkies were raped by their fathers around the age of 7.
CR
Also - on bullet penetration. I wouldn't worry so much about neighbors (of course, I don't live in an apartment complex) as much as people in the same house.
Bullets and buckshot from shotguns will penetrate interior walls easily (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOUyLz8Rsr8).
Interesting link and test, I wouldn't have thought #7.5 shot would get through 5 layers of drywall. Love how the wad went right through the first sheet, man drywall is useless. :laugh4: If the shot was at an acute angle, the studs would have a greater effect stopping the pellets, but still dangerous. Wonder what rock salt would do?
And I think I know that guy in the vid... :inquisitive:
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 05:05
thats bull hockey horetore.
yes, I know it's very convenient to think that everyone in a bad situation are just stupid people, it makes it a lot easier for us to not care about them.
The truth, however, is that most people in such situations are there for reasons other than "own stupidity". People usually start with drugs to escape from something, like an incestious daddy, a drunken mom, bullies at school, chronic pains, etc etc. That's why rehab so often fails; it cures the addiction, but not the underlying reason why they started doing drugs.
But there's no need to take my word for it, all you need to do is simply talk to some junkies and ask them why they're on drugs.
Why are you not advocating to get rid of all criminal laws because all criminals are poor victims of "the system" or "a difficult youth" or "grown up in poverty" while you're at it?
I do not believe in neither prison nor punishment for that matter, which is why I'm very happy that people like Nils Christie have such a huge influence on our justice system, and that we largely abondoned punishment as a reaction in the 70's.
Ser Clegane
07-24-2010, 07:13
Someone who shoots a person in their house, in legal self defense, will still be scrutinized. What will be scrutinized? If there really was as case of self defense (that would be what I was asking for, wouldn't it?) - also, what defines self-defense in this case? An actual threat or the mere fact that somebody is in the house (if it is the latter, then we are back to the starting point of the discussion)?
And here in the US, the cases of trigger happy people shooting someone on their lawn are so low as to be statistically insignificant. As in, a couple per year in a nation of 300 million people.
In my post I was referring to "anybody who steps on his lawn or looks threatening" - I do not have any statistics (do you?) but in this very thread I counted at least three people who seem very willing to shoot on sight, not caring about the potential threat level but out of principle.
@HoreTore
You might have some point with regard to junkies (although I very much doubt that you can generalize either way), however junkies are certainly not the only burglars.
Apart from that - if a person poses an actual threat, it should not matter whether it is a junkie with an unhappy childhood or a "professional" burglar - you should be allowed to take appropriate measures to counter the threat (that the Manson clan might have had an unhappy childhood offers little consolation for the victims).
While I have no desire to have a gun in my house, I recognize that this is at least partly based on the fact that the potential risk of needing it for actual self-defense is pretty low were I live and that this is my own choice. For other people the situation may well be different and I would not want to deny them appropriate options for self-defense - I am just very much against general "get out of jail free" cards.
Crazed Rabbit
07-24-2010, 08:57
What will be scrutinized? If there really was as case of self defense (that would be what I was asking for, wouldn't it?) - also, what defines self-defense in this case? An actual threat or the mere fact that somebody is in the house (if it is the latter, then we are back to the starting point of the discussion)?
Here's the thing; if the prosecutor and police decide to indict you, they will **** your life up whatever happens. The best case scenario is you spend years and tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself and are acquitted. Your career and reputation might be ruined.
The more probable outcome is that you'll be convicted or be forced to plea bargain if the government decides it wants to hang your scalp on its wall. I have extremely little trust in jurors; they are selected by the prosecution for the stupidest and most likely to blindly swallow the government's story. Most jurors are likely to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
Look at the case of Richard Paey. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Paey) He suffered excruciating back pain from a car accident and took lots of pain pills. In Florida, the law allows a person with one month's supply of pain pills to be charged with drug trafficking. The police began investigating him and surveilled his house for months. They saw no evidence of drug trafficking, but broke in anyways and arrested him. They could see he was in a wheelchair and the only evidence they had was his legally prescribed pain pills, in a normal amount for someone like him.
But they charged him anyway, and a jury convicted him of "15 counts of drug trafficking, possession of a controlled substance, and obtaining a controlled substance by fraud". This was after the case got thrown out twice. The prosecutor kept refiling the case, never letting it go, until he got to a judge who didn't throw the case out.
He got sentenced to 25 years in jail.
Those idiot jurors convicted a man in a wheelchair who needed pills to live without agonizing pain because the government said he was the guilty.
The only way to win in the criminal 'justice' system is not to play. So I support laws that give the benefit of innocence to people and stop them from ever going to court in the first place.
In my post I was referring to "anybody who steps on his lawn or looks threatening" - I do not have any statistics (do you?) but in this very thread I counted at least three people who seem very willing to shoot on sight, not caring about the potential threat level but out of principle.
Surely you would agree that nothing substantive can be made of such internet boasting.
CR
You might have some point with regard to junkies (although I very much doubt that you can generalize either way), however junkies are certainly not the only burglars.
Indeed. Home robberies are common here and they are usually incredibly violent. Eastern European gangs come 'shopping' here, and return back home, not much the police can do about it. They just enter your home in broad daylight.
Ser Clegane
07-24-2010, 09:27
Here's the thing [...]
I see where you are coming from (with regard to the specific US situation) - I do not live in the US and am not familiar enough with the state of the jurisdiction to get into an educated discussion, but I have to say that the thought that many people at least believe that the jurisdiction is so messed up (and perhaps beyond repair?) that it is better to have a rather unrestricted right to kill intruders is more than a bit depressing.
Surely you would agree that nothing substantive can be made of such internet boasting.
Perhaps - but, to be honest, if a bunch of people keep telling me that they are "entitled" to kill any intruder and that they will not hesitate to do so, because burglars have no rights at all and killing them is basically equivalent to doing society a favour, the last thing I support is giving them a gun, ammo and a free pass to use it.
When giving a people the means and the right to kill I think a certain level of responsibility and maturity should be expected from those who receive it.
:bow:
Crazed Rabbit
07-24-2010, 09:40
I see where you are coming from (with regard to the specific US situation) - I do not live in the US and am not familiar enough with the state of the jurisdiction to get into an educated discussion, but I have to say that the thought that many people at least believe that the jurisdiction is so messed up (and perhaps beyond repair?) that it is better to have a rather unrestricted right to kill intruders is more than a bit depressing.
Indeed. I believe the root of the problem is simple - the incentive for police and prosecutors and the state in general is always to convict people, not to find justice - which necessarily means not convicting people.
Perhaps - but, to be honest, if a bunch of people keep telling me that they are "entitled" to kill any intruder and that they will not hesitate to do so, because burglars have no rights at all and killing them is basically equivalent to doing society a favour, the last thing I support is giving them a gun, ammo and a free pass to use it.
Heh, fair enough I suppose. I do think most of the talk is just that - talk.
CR
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 09:53
Indeed. Home robberies are common here and they are usually incredibly violent. Eastern European gangs come 'shopping' here, and return back home, not much the police can do about it. They just enter your home in broad daylight.
The eastern euro gangs represent most of the robberies here too. But they never enter a house where there are people. They always enter when they're not at home.
The only ones dumb enough to enter a house full of people, are junkies barely aware of their whereabouts.
And I have only heard of one instance during the last ten years or so where it resulted in a death.
The eastern euro gangs represent most of the robberies here too. But they never enter a house where there are people. They always enter when they're not at home.
The only ones dumb enough to enter a house full of people, are junkies barely aware of their whereabouts.
And I have only heard of one instance during the last ten years or so where it resulted in a death.
Just one yesterday. These robberies happen almost daily, most of the old hotspots have camaras so they go to the countryside, but it also happens in neighberhoods with much 'criminal youths'. More often then not a lot of violence is used, and nobody is ever caught, when they are people are afraid of retaliations and don't cooperate.
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 11:29
Just one yesterday. These robberies happen almost daily, most of the old hotspots have camaras so they go to the countryside, but it also happens in neighberhoods with much 'criminal youths'. More often then not a lot of violence is used, and nobody is ever caught, when they are people are afraid of retaliations and don't cooperate.
Huh.
They go to the countryside, you say? Hmmm.... What do you find in large quantities in the countryside? Guns. Lots of 'em, every farmer worth his salt has at least a shotgun. Did you just offer proof that guns doesn't deter crimes, Fragony...?
Lots of dogs there too, sounds like you just dispelled two myths in one stroke!
Huh.
They go to the countryside, you say? Hmmm.... What do you find in large quantities in the countryside? Guns. Lots of 'em, every farmer worth his salt has at least a shotgun. Did you just offer proof that guns doesn't deter crimes, Fragony...?
Countryside means not the city. Most still happen in the city though, but there is a shift.
make daily weekly by the way
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 11:41
Countryside means not the city. Most still happen in the city though, but there is a swift.
Indeed it does! And most people who hunt or are members of shootings clubs don't live in cities, they live in the countryside. Those people have all teh gunz, and yet you're suggesting that the criminals see them as softer targets than the gun-free hippies who live in cities?
Fisherking
07-24-2010, 11:48
Guns do deter crime. Or at least have the right to own them dose.
Every study has shown it to be so. The likelihood of encountering armed resistance dose dissuade some from violent crimes.
It dose not increase the amount of killings but it dose reduce the type of home invasion robberies you find with an unarmed populace.
Owning a gun doesn’t make you much safer but having the right to own and use one will.
Indeed it does! And most people who hunt or are members of shootings clubs don't live in cities, they live in the countryside. Those people have all teh gunz, and yet you're suggesting that the criminals see them as softer targets than the gun-free hippies who live in cities?
Again, countryside means not the city, villages with hardly any surveillance capice . And hunting are you kidding me this is the Netherlands, you know, 16 million people live here. Now check us on the map, how much hunting ground do you expect to find here.
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 11:53
Guns do deter crime. Or at least have the right to own them dose.
Every study has shown it to be so. The likelihood of encountering armed resistance dose dissuade some from violent crimes.
It dose not increase the amount of killings but it dose reduce the type of home invasion robberies you find with an unarmed populace.
Owning a gun doesn’t make you much safer but having the right to own and use one will.
So.... That's why gun-owning America has more home invasions than gun-free Norway, and the dirty poles in Fragonystan are switching from the gun-free cities to the gun-toting countryside?
Somehow that doesn't add up.
Again, countryside means not the city, villages with hardly any surveillance capice . And hunting are you kidding me this is the Netherlands, you know, 16 million people live here. Now check us on the map, how much hunting ground do you expect to find here.
Surveillance? My Engrish must be rusty, becuase I thought surveillance meant "video cameras", not "shotguns".
Or are you suggest that cameras are the answer, and guns are irrelevant?
Here's the thing; if the prosecutor and police decide to indict you, they will **** your life up whatever happens. The best case scenario is you spend years and tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself and are acquitted. Your career and reputation might be ruined.
The more probable outcome is that you'll be convicted or be forced to plea bargain if the government decides it wants to hang your scalp on its wall. I have extremely little trust in jurors; they are selected by the prosecution for the stupidest and most likely to blindly swallow the government's story. Most jurors are likely to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
Look at the case of Richard Paey. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Paey) He suffered excruciating back pain from a car accident and took lots of pain pills. In Florida, the law allows a person with one month's supply of pain pills to be charged with drug trafficking. The police began investigating him and surveilled his house for months. They saw no evidence of drug trafficking, but broke in anyways and arrested him. They could see he was in a wheelchair and the only evidence they had was his legally prescribed pain pills, in a normal amount for someone like him.
But they charged him anyway, and a jury convicted him of "15 counts of drug trafficking, possession of a controlled substance, and obtaining a controlled substance by fraud". This was after the case got thrown out twice. The prosecutor kept refiling the case, never letting it go, until he got to a judge who didn't throw the case out.
He got sentenced to 25 years in jail.
Those idiot jurors convicted a man in a wheelchair who needed pills to live without agonizing pain because the government said he was the guilty.
The only way to win in the criminal 'justice' system is not to play. So I support laws that give the benefit of innocence to people and stop them from ever going to court in the first place.
Wow, and here I thought "being judged by your peers" was the best thing that could happen to you regarding courts. ~;)
You don't make the US justice system sound very just, in fact I wonder why you still like the USA? The way it sounds, politicians make laws that give you the right to shoot anyone on your lawn because they know if there is no law that stops their own prosecutors from prosecuting you, you're done for if you defend yourself?
Our European system where you can get sued because you left some marbles on the floor and the intruder broke his arm when he slipped on them isn't all that much better though, that's why, as Fragony said, you better bury him in your garden and be quiet about it. ~;)
So.... That's why gun-owning America has more home invasions than gun-free Norway, and the dirty poles in Fragonystan are switching from the gun-free cities to the gun-toting countryside?
Somehow that doesn't add up.
Surveillance? My Engrish must be rusty, becuase I thought surveillance meant "video cameras", not "shotguns".
Or are you suggest that cameras are the answer, and guns are irrelevant?
Again countryside means not city's, vil-la-ges. They don't have shotguns there they have gardens with plastic pools a supermarket and a chinese restaurant. If you want take on a personal thought-experiment fine with me but we could as well talk about the same thing for argument's sake.
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 14:23
Again countryside means not city's, vil-la-ges. They don't have shotguns there they have gardens with plastic pools a supermarket and a chinese restaurant. If you want take on a personal thought-experiment fine with me but we could as well talk about the same thing for argument's sake.
As far as I know, they don't have guns in dutch cities either. They do have surveillance, however, which is what you state is the reason why they pick on villages instead of cities.
So, the logic is; Cameras keep thieves away, that's why we need guns to protect ourselves. Brilliant logic!
As far as I know, they don't have guns in dutch cities either. They do have surveillance, however, which is what you state is the reason why they pick on villages instead of cities.
So, the logic is; Cameras keep thieves away, that's why we need guns to protect ourselves. Brilliant logic!
No camara's in Dutch villages, ever heard about police surveilling. The real logic is to try to get as much of the opposite of logic to back down. You can keep your logic anyway as there is not enough room for it to function as it should. We have a word for it, the 'leftist church'
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 16:29
No camara's in Dutch villages, ever heard about police surveilling. The real logic is to try to get as much of the opposite of logic to back down. You can keep your logic anyway as there is not enough room for it to function as it should. We have a word for it, the 'leftist church'
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Don't worry, it's perfectly normal that lefties are clueless.
HoreTore
07-24-2010, 18:48
Don't worry, it's perfectly normal that lefties are clueless.
You know I still love you, Frags :sweetheart:
You know I still love you, Frags :sweetheart:
Disagreement is fine, killing for possesion is stupid but you really hurt me in a different way. Suffer my wrath.
Every study has shown it to be so ????? From where, these studies... Can you link or give yours sources because for my knowledge there are less murders and violence in countries where weapons are not allowed.
Reason why the Préfet de Police of Paris in the 19th Century banned weapon from the street (swords)... And it worked. Less poepel cut themselves, less people killed for just a row in the streets.
When you don't have weapons you can't use them, so you,ve got time to THINK before to act.
Centurion1
07-25-2010, 03:00
Yes horetore everyone in the countryside is a farmer with a shotgun and vicious hounds.
And you act like I'm clueless.......
Fisherking
07-25-2010, 10:16
So.... That's why gun-owning America has more home invasions than gun-free Norway, and the dirty poles in Fragonystan are switching from the gun-free cities to the gun-toting countryside?
Somehow that doesn't add up.
You know there are many places in the US that restrict gun ownership and their use. These tend to be the areas of high home invasion.
In areas where conceal and carry laws have been instituted you have fairly dramatic reductions in violent crime and in areas of strict gun control they are higher.
There is also a difference in most of Germany and Scandinavian countries. Of what it is I am uncertain.
It makes for obtuse comparisons.
At one time Germany had the highest percentage of individual gun ownership in the world and today one of the lowest, yet crime has remained fairly low.
I think this speaks more about the Germans than their laws.
It is not guns or gun ownership that cause crime.
Japan has a high murder rate yet they restrict all fire arms and even air rifles.
The main murder weapon tends to be clubs or cudgels.
AHUM! The Netherlands is not Germany
Fisherking
07-25-2010, 11:10
I wasn't speaking to crime in the Netherlands.
The only time I have been there was to change planes. I like the football team but don't know enough to speak about anything else happening there.
Fisherking
07-25-2010, 12:13
No, you aren’t.
Did you think I was confused on that point?
I live in Germany and was speaking to that.
Skullheadhq
07-25-2010, 12:16
the 'leftist church'
Oh lawd, here we go again. Isn't it tiring to talk like a 50 year old construction worker the entire day?
Attributing everything evil and bad to a political orientation won't solve anything.
Oh lawd, here we go again. Isn't it tiring to talk like a 50 year old construction worker the entire day?
Attributing everything evil and bad to a political orientation won't solve anything.
It is what it is, a religion that exists only because of the dire fate that is social exclusion, the Leftisi Church.
Skullheadhq
07-25-2010, 13:54
It is what it is, a religion that exists only because of the dire fate that is social exclusion, the Leftisi Church.
Formidable arguments! You completly swayed my opinion! I am conquered, it is 1-0 for you [/sarcasm]
En nou je broek ophijsen ouwe loodgietert dat je er bent :clown:
gaelic cowboy
07-26-2010, 12:16
Typical I go away for a few days and there is an interesting thread started about Ireland.
For all those who care at this stage the background to this case is from the Padraig Nally Frog Ward shooting in county Mayo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Ward).
The key point for me is this
in 2009, The Republic of Ireland government announced its plan to introduce a new law of self defence in 2010 upon recommendation by the Law Reform Commission which would allow a householder to kill in certain circumstances, if defending themselves, their family or their home. This has become known colloquially as Nally's law since the case prompted the Commission to review law.[14] There are 25,000 burglaries in Ireland every year and more than 15,000 burglaries each year occur when the victim is at home
Banquo's Ghost
07-26-2010, 19:59
Typical I go away for a few days and there is an interesting thread started about Ireland.
This thread left Ireland long ago and emigrated to make a new life for itself. :wink:
gaelic cowboy
07-26-2010, 20:05
This thread left Ireland long ago and emigrated to make a new life for itself. :wink:
I spotted that allright :beam:
Centurion1
07-26-2010, 21:25
much like the irish in the 1800s it came to america
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.