'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States

[Annie]

And the lesson for robbers is to come heavily armed when they rob homes and to kill the owners before doing so. They are already desperate but now these kinds of laws increase the liklihood of more deadly home invasions. Of all the stupid laws this one has to take the cake because it is likely to lead to a lot of innocent people being killed as a result of the robber choosing to put his life before theirs. We need to use some common sense here. Now robbers are going to carefully plan their invasions and go directly for the homeowners bedrooms, put a bullet in them, and then just in case kill their children and proceed to rob them. I am so glad that I don't live in Florida because I don't want to end up dead as a result of such stupid laws. Here is a good example of it:

"A husband and wife are sleeping and they don't own a gun but the robber doesn't know that. The robber goes into their bedrooms and puts a bullet in both of them and then robs the house because he wanted to make sure he wouldn't be shot while in the commission of the act."

Also, your suggestion that someone who mistakenly enters someone's home should be sure to call ahead is idiotic. The point is that they are entering the wrong home and are killed as a result of doing so. Now, it makes sense for the owners to defend themselves and that it would be okay for the owner to shoot to kill someone who is robbing their house but the burden of proof should rest upon the homeowner to show that they had reason to fear for their life. Now this law allows someone to invite someone to their home, and kill them and then say that they thought they were robbing their homes. The liklihood of this law being abused is obvious.

You are assuming that burglars wish to escalate to murderers, simply not true. However, homeowners do wish to enjoy their property to themselves and invited others.

 

[Edward]

Driving a car is not a right. Okay. Your point is taken. Yet, is it your position, since the constitution does not say otherwise, that anyone off the streets with any reason or no reason should be allowed to buy any type of arm that he wants immediately with no safety catch, no registration numbers, no training, no limit, no nothing?

With rights come responsibility but there are many who think otherwise. I do not believe it appropriate to just give someone a gun, allow them to exercise the right to bear arms without having restraints on that right just like we do with freedom of speech, religion, and every other right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, there are many who would have us believe that when a right is enumerated the government has no right to regulate it but this isn't the case. It is a right to bear arms yet if you commit a felony you can lose the right to bear arms. It is only reasonable to regulate gun ownership so long as we do not ban people from owning guns.

 

[Annie]

With rights come responsibility but there are many who think otherwise. I do not believe it appropriate to just give someone a gun, allow them to exercise the right to bear arms without having restraints on that right just like we do with freedom of speech, religion, and every other right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, there are many who would have us believe that when a right is enumerated the government has no right to regulate it but this isn't the case. It is a right to bear arms yet if you commit a felony you can lose the right to bear arms. It is only reasonable to regulate gun ownership so long as we do not ban people from owning guns.

Logical fallacy. One looses one's rights when the decision is made to break the laws, our common agreement. When one adheres to the laws, there should be no restrictions.

 

[Edward]

You are assuming that burglars wish to escalate to murderers, simply not true. However, homeowners do wish to enjoy their property to themselves and invited others.

I did not assume that burglars wish to escalate to murder instead I'm stating that when people decide to rob a home and there is a law that allows the homeowner to shoot and kill them automatically that the robber is going to be far more likely to commit murder and take their lives before they can take his/her life. When you back someone into a corner they are going to defend themselves and this law does just that. These people are already desperate enough to rob someone's home and when faced with the threat of death they are going to be 99% more likely to use force themselves. I am not suggesting that homeowners don't want to enjoy their homes instead I am suggesting that I prefer to live and have my home robbed over being killed as someone robs my home. My first step would be to call the police, have an alarm system in my home, etc than to confront the robber and risk the liklihood of being killed. But the problem with this is that my choosing to do so in Florida is more likely to result in my death because the robber isn't going to wait until I come out and kill him instead he is going to seek me out first and kill me in order to protect himself. This law will prevent many people from robbing homes (i.e., those who do not want to kill others) and leave those who do have the capacity to kill others to be the ones who rob homes.

 

[Annie]

I did not assume that burglars wish to escalate to murder instead I'm stating that when people decide to rob a home and there is a law that allows the homeowner to shoot and kill them automatically that the robber is going to be far more likely to commit murder and take their lives before they can take his/her life. When you back someone into a corner they are going to defend themselves and this law does just that. These people are already desperate enough to rob someone's home and when faced with the threat of death they are going to be 99% more likely to use force themselves. I am not suggesting that homeowners don't want to enjoy their homes instead I am suggesting that I prefer to live and have my home robbed over being killed as someone robs my home. My first step would be to call the police, have an alarm system in my home, etc than to confront the robber and risk the liklihood of being killed. But the problem with this is that my choosing to do so in Florida is more likely to result in my death because the robber isn't going to wait until I come out and kill him instead he is going to seek me out first and kill me in order to protect himself. This law will prevent many people from robbing homes (i.e., those who do not want to kill others) and leave those who do have the capacity to kill others to be the ones who rob homes.

Once again, you are assuming that burglars want to up the ante. Not true. They'll find other ways to make their bucks, not murder.

 

[Diuretic]

Most housebreakers - the thief type not the drug-addled nutcase type - want to avoid a confrontation with a householder, that's why they prefer to do housebreaks in the day (making sure occupants are out) and they like to leave both the front and back doors open on a single storey house (if you come in one way they flee out of the other). The problem for housebreakers is that a face to face confrontation with a householder may see a physical struggle and the danger of being able to be identified later on.

 

[Edward]

Logical fallacy. One looses one's rights when the decision is made to break the laws, our common agreement. When one adheres to the laws, there should be no restrictions.

That is the most stupid statement I have heard. The only people who accept your fallacy are those who agree with you. Most intelligent people would not accept your statement as true. Nor do we have a comon agreement on this subject. There are many who disagree with your ideology and opinion on this subject. But let's put that aside for a minute and address the core issue here which is that you think you can decide when people have a right and when they do not. In short your argument is: "I decide when people have rights and when they do not, because I am the final interpretator of the Constitution and I get to decie who gets rights and who does not."

 

[Edward]

Once again, you are assuming that burglars want to up the ante. Not true. They'll find other ways to make their bucks, not murder.

Don't telling me what I am assuming. Let me be as clear as I can. I am not assuming what you claim I am and you are an ego-centric ass. I am saying that if there is a law that allows the homeowner to shoot and kill from the shadows without any danger being posed by the robber that those who invade homes in those states are more likely to address the threat before going about the robbery. That this law will also prevent those who do not want to murder someone from even committing the robbery in the first place and that the only people left invading homes are the ones who are willing to do so. To claim otherwise is idiotic. Many people will find other ways to do so but those who are desperate enough to rob someone's home are now far more likely to commit murder before proceeding to rob the house. That you are so ignorant that you cannot understand simple logic demonstrates your inability to have a rational thought.

 

[Annie]

Don't telling me what I am assuming. Let me be as clear as I can. I am not assuming what you claim I am and you are an ego-centric ass.

I am neither ego-centric, nor an ass.

I am saying that if there is a law that allows the homeowner to shoot and kill from the shadows without any danger being posed by the robber that those who invade homes in those states are more likely to address the threat before going about the robbery.

Once again, that is your logical fallacy. Those that invade homes do so because they see it as the easiest way to get what they want. On the other hand, if it becomes too dangerous or difficult, they will find another way.

That this law will also prevent those who do not want to murder someone from even committing the robbery in the first place and that the only people left invading homes are the ones who are willing to do so.

Does not make sense.To claim otherwise is idiotic.

Many people will find other ways to do so but those who are desperate enough to rob someone's home are now far more likely to commit murder before proceeding to rob the house. That you are so ignorant that you cannot understand simple logic demonstrates your inability to have a rational thought.

Only in your own deluded understanding of criminology and motivations.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am neither ego-centric, nor an ass. Once again, that is your logical fallacy. Those that invade homes do so because they see it as the easiest way to get what they want. On the other hand, if it becomes too dangerous or difficult, they will find another way. Does not make sense.To claim otherwise is idiotic.Only in your own deluded understanding of criminology and motivations.

Arguing with Edwards is a waste of time, unless your just bored.

 

[Diuretic]

That is the most stupid statement I have heard. The only people who accept your fallacy are those who agree with you. Most intelligent people would not accept your statement as true. Nor do we have a comon agreement on this subject. There are many who disagree with your ideology and opinion on this subject. But let's put that aside for a minute and address the core issue here which is that you think you can decide when people have a right and when they do not. In short your argument is: "I decide when people have rights and when they do not, because I am the final interpretator of the Constitution and I get to decie who gets rights and who does not."

'Stupid statement"
"The only people who accept your fallacy are those who agree with you"
"Most intelligent people would not accept your statement as true."
And then an interpretation of the point being proferred.

You've spent too much time among the right wingers Edward, you're resorting to their tactics. Stay on the argument.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Dont Mess With TEXAS!!!

Burglars in the United States could once sue homeowners if they were shot, but now a growing number of states have made it legal to shoot to kill when somebody breaks into a house.

John Woodson, 46, found that out last week when he ambled into Dennis Baker's open garage in a Dallas suburb. A surveillance video showed the robber strolling inside, hands in his pockets.

From the shadows, Baker opened fire and killed Woodson.

"I just had to protect myself and that was it," Baker told reporters despite the fact Woodson had not tried to enter the bedroom near the garage where Baker had been sleeping.

The incident made national headlines since it was Baker's parrot that gave the alarm when it innocently squawked "good morning" at the intruder.

But Woodson's death seemed anecdotal compared to another Dallas resident who a few days earlier had killed his second robber in three weeks inside his home.

Police are investigating both cases, but it is unlikely charges will be filed. Texas recently passed a law branding anybody breaking into a home or car as a real threat of injury or death to its occupants.

In contrast with traditional self-defense laws, this measure does not require that a person who opens fire on a burglar be able to prove that he or she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort and that the victim had first tried to hide.

Florida was the first state to adopt in 2005 a law that was dubbed "Stand your ground" or "Shoot first."

But now they have proliferated largely under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), the main weapons lobby in the United States.

Today 19 out of 50 US states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, have this kind of laws, and similar legislation is pending in about a dozen others.

"This law will bring common-sense self-defense protections to law-abiding citizens," said Rachel Parsons, a spokesperson for the NRA.

"If someone is breaking into your home, it's obvious that they are not there to have dinner with you," she continued. "You do have a right to protect your belongings, your family and yourself.

"The law needs to be put on the side of the victim, and not on the side of the criminal, who is attacking the victim."

But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.

"It's that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path," said Sally Slovenski, executive director of the alliance.

"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.

"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."

According to Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 2.18 million burglaries to the United States in 2006, up 1.3 percent compared to the year before.

But the number is still well below the 3.24 million burglaries a year committed 20 years ago.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/_Shoot_first_laws_make_it_tougher_f_10272007.html

http://thecontaminated.com/unusual-weapons-of-the-world/

 

[Shogun]

Bicycles might cause more injury per bicycle owner when compared guns causing injury to gun owner. Yet, one factor that I think should be considered is statistics on “who gets hurt”. It is one think if a gun owner clumsily shoots himself. It is quite another when a “Dirty Harry wanna be” foolishly or clumsily shoots someone else. For comparison, how often does a bicyclist injure himself and how often does a bicyclist permanently maim someone else with a bicycle? I doubt that bike riders injure other people to the extent that gun owners injure other people.

I think that the Bill of Rights needs limitations. For instance, does “freedom of religion” mean that if my religion calls for animal sacrifice, I can burn animals for that reason? Does freedom of speech mean that I can scream racial obscenities at midnight in a dark alley in Harlem?

we can copare bycicles, cars, trains, plances, whatever you want to consider. Accidents happen. It's life. Deal with it. If you start tossing out arbitrary limitations on the bill of rights so too can others toss out their lame ass opinions. Yes, you would be an asshole but your freedom of speech would allow you to do just that. You may get a nuisiance ticket for the late hour.. and your ass whipped as a souvineer... but I'd expect the guys who whupped your ass to be charged with assault. People should be responsible with guns; among a large range of other dangerous items we allow ourselves. If you don't like the second amendment then get it repealed. As it stands, it's every bit as valuable and automatically broadly applied as the first.

 

[Ninja]

I think that the Bill of Rights needs limitations.

Don't you have a Hillary fundraiser to attend or something?

 

[Edward]

we can copare bycicles, cars, trains, plances, whatever you want to consider. Accidents happen. It's life. Deal with it. If you start tossing out arbitrary limitations on the bill of rights so too can others toss out their lame ass opinions. Yes, you would be an asshole but your freedom of speech would allow you to do just that. You may get a nuisiance ticket for the late hour.. and your ass whipped as a souvineer... but I'd expect the guys who whupped your ass to be charged with assault. People should be responsible with guns; among a large range of other dangerous items we allow ourselves. If you don't like the second amendment then get it repealed. As it stands, it's every bit as valuable and automatically broadly applied as the first.

The first amendment isn't broadly applied in this country. In fact, freedom of speech is also a regulated right as is the right to own guns. It is odd that those who believe that the second amendment should have no restrictions or limitations ignore that the first does as does every other right enumerated in the Constitution. It must be because they have an agenda. I do not accept your either-or proposition. I support the second amendment and do not want it repealed instead I reject your retarded interepretation of it as I am sure most intelligent people do.

 

[Edward]

'Stupid statement"
"The only people who accept your fallacy are those who agree with you"
"Most intelligent people would not accept your statement as true."
And then an interpretation of the point being proferred.

You've spent too much time among the right wingers Edward, you're resorting to their tactics. Stay on the argument.

I will stick with my argument and not yours. I have not deviated from my argument since I started posting in this thread and part of my argument is how retarded some shitheads are and how they elect other shitheads to represent them. I don't care one bit for the fucking Democrats or the asshole Republicans. The faction that makes up these two parties can go to hell.

 

[Diuretic]

I will stick with my argument and not yours. I have not deviated from my argument since I started posting in this thread and part of my argument is how retarded some shitheads are and how they elect other shitheads to represent them. I don't care one bit for the fucking Democrats or the asshole Republicans. The faction that makes up these two parties can go to hell.

Edward, attacking the individual is simply boorish, it's also not much fun to read.

 

[Edward]

Edward, attacking the individual is simply boorish, it's also not much fun to read.

Then don't read it. I on the other hand will get to the root of the issue which includes the mental capacity and character of those here. Now that you have given me your opinion about the subject of attacking the individual you can move on when I say I don't give a shit.

 

[Diuretic]

Then don't read it. I on the other hand will get to the root of the issue which includes the mental capacity and character of those here. Now that you have given me your opinion about the subject of attacking the individual you can move on when I say I don't give a shit.

I'm not a mindreader. I see a topic, I think, "that's interesting," I read it, I get to a patch where it starts to get stupidly personal, I read on, hoping the antagonists get over themselves, they don't, I abandon the thread.

I know you don't give a shit. I don't care that you don't give a shit. You'll read what I have to say about you and your posting style because you're interested in what others think about you. I would like to read what you - and others - think about the issues - I don't give a shit what you think about another poster, save it for PM.

 

[Edward]

I'm not a mindreader. I see a topic, I think, "that's interesting," I read it, I get to a patch where it starts to get stupidly personal, I read on, hoping the antagonists get over themselves, they don't, I abandon the thread.

I know you don't give a shit. I don't care that you don't give a shit. You'll read what I have to say about you and your posting style because you're interested in what others think about you. I would like to read what you - and others - think about the issues - I don't give a shit what you think about another poster, save it for PM.

Don't tell me what I can and cannot say you fucking bastard. If the issue I am discussing is not the issue you want to read about than don't read it. Since I intend to take the character and intellectual capacity of those who are part of the discussion into account you can choose to discuss that issue or not. As for me I will decide which issues I will discuss and which I will not. If you don't want to discuss those issues than feel free not to respond but it is obvious you want to discuss them since you did respond.

I don't give a shit what you think about this POSTER and you can save it for PM you hypocritical jackass. But of course I NEED TO GET OVER MYSELF WHILE YOUR RETARDED ASS DOESN'T. Now that you have stated your opinion of me and posters who choose to discuss other issues you can move on. Now that you have posted your thoughts about others in this thread instead of saving it for PM you can admit that you are a fucking hypocrite who wants others to behave one way while you get to behave another. Now tell me what else you think is stupid you fucking moron. If you don't want to discuss the issue of you being a bastard than go find another issue to discuss and another person to have a discussion with.