Do you mean simply owning a gun, or being permitted to use lethal force to protect personal property?

Well, the point is being made that the fact of owning, and subsequently being able to shove a shotgun into someones face is deterent enough.

According to wikipedia, there are 24 states that have laws where you can use deadly force against someone for criminal trespassing. If you look at this chart of violent crimes per-capita in different states in the US, you'll see that there is no correlation one way or another between crimes and having a "castle doctrine."

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html

Unfortunately the list is in alphabetical order. But, you can clearly see that being able to shoot someone for simply being on your property or stealing your property has very little correlation with violent crimes. I suspect this is because being able to kill someone for being in your house does not prevent crimes in general from occurring, but rather has the possibility to protect your life when the crime is already occurring.

Quote from danowat :

Spoken like a true American

Location: Texas

Quote from danowat :

Spoken like a true American

Thank you for the compliment. Even if you probably didn't mean it that way.

I think that the drug crime and the large number of murders really can't be attributed to people protecting their homes with guns. Yes, we are a violent nation and it would be much safer if some how we could keep the guns away from the bad guys. We already have gun control laws but the bad people seem to be ignoring them. New York and Washington D.C. actually had very strict gun ownership laws but still have some of the highest crime rates and murder rates.

I doubt that having a gun, or other weapons, will prevent people from trying to break into one's home since most of us don't put up signs saying we are armed. If I had neighbors with your opinions, which I don't, I think I would suggest that they put up a sign saying "This house is unlocked and I have no weapons". I think the odds of a thief picking my house would then go down significantly.

Quote from codehound :

and the cocking of a shotgun is the universal language saying "get out of here" and doesn't need to be translated.

No, The pumping of a shotgun says "You're royally ****ed"

Get out of here is not what my Beneilli says

I've pointed it at two people, A pesky guy that keeps trespassing and someone that tried to rob me, Would I feel bad blowing him away? Probably, Would I feel glad that I saved a potentially deadly situation, Yup. It's two fold, If you can handle a death in your concious then go for it, If you can't, Then don't own one. Personally I have about 15 throwing knifes and I can hit a bulls-eye about 73 Meters away. Way more effective, Plus the fact I can scream at him in Russian really scares people off, If anyone is Russian you should try it, You don't even have to say bad things just scream some words, Works every time

I prefer if you want to learn how to defend your house go for non-lethal weapons, Throwing knifes aren't lethal unless you hit them in a organ, If I put a throwing knife in your kneecap you're going down no matter what weapon you have, Plus I can throw faster than I can aim and shoot, And the fact that a throwing knife at first glance + Looking at a woman is a laughing stock, Not alot can change that.

I find women with guns slightly terrifying.

Quote from codehound :

But whether a person chooses defense or hope is their right. Both choices come with risk but each person should have a right to make that choice for themselves. Circumstances will have a lot to do with which choice is the most wise.

Totally agree with that, and i'm a "no-guns-at-home-never-shoot-a person-for-stealing-tv" guy. Bah my english it's getting worse every time

While i know lot of bad words in russian i dont feel it's really frightening, not as much as a "sovrapposto" anyway (pump action shotguns are for american cowboys who cant shoot with stile and elegance ).

Quote from SidiousX :

We don't keep weapons " for the purpose of hurting people" We have them for other uses, target shooting, hunting, etc. We just keep the at hand in case of an emergency.

what if you shoot to kill an un-armed theif or simular....

sure you might be doing the right thing but still you risk serious jail time ( any jail time is serious imho - you never take me alive... )

for all the hassle they cause their not worth it.

homer simpson and " the defender " are a much Much better option

Jesus General, in your line of work, what are you, MI5 agent or something

With regards to "weapons" a mobile can be classed as a weapon now, your not "allowed" to use this, unless it is self-defence. Now what people class as self-defence is up to the court to decide.

I mean, look at that farmer, that shot that bloke to breaking in, and got put away for Attempted Murder. Also that Burgular that sued a women, because he cut himself on the window he broke to get in her house (Yes these are real stories )

People that take law into their own hands, are punished more nowadays. The judge would just see it as (your not above the law, you should of called the police ) and with less police available, etc etc.....I know, its wrong.

These are obviously quiet serious weapons you are talking about here, to shock people like that, and question you. They don't seem to be your average kitchen knife per-say.

In honesty, I would say, you do what you feel you have to do, but if your friends are raising an eyebrow, and they know you as a person, maybe you should raise any eyebrow to, and ask your self

Quote from Fordman :

I mean, look at that farmer, that shot that bloke to breaking in, and got put away for Attempted Murder.(Yes these are real stories )

I take it you mean Tony Martin?

LOL, talk about half the story.....

You forgot the bit about the unarmed robber being shot with an illegally held Winchester pump action shotgun though!.

The reason he got sent down was because, according to the letter of the law, he used WAY more than reasonable force.

Quote from danowat :

I take it you mean Tony Martin?

LOL, talk about half the story.....

You forgot the bit about the unarmed robber being shot with an illegally held Winchester pump action shotgun though!.

He also shot him dead while he was fleeing.

Quote from Fordman :

that Burgular that sued a women, because he cut himself on the window he broke to get in her house (Yes these are real stories )

Link?

There could potentially be a case to answer if the house was deliberately protected by broken glass (like the old trick of setting broken glass in mortar on the top of a boundary wall) but the scenario you describe above sounds like bollocks to me.

I am trying to find that story, but it was back in the 80's and the only reference I can find is a burgular falling through a sky light.

Here is a link if you want some more funny lawsuits

£2.7mil for Coffee to hot from Maccy D's

"It is possible for homeowners to be sued for damages under the Occupier's Liability Act 1984 if a burglar is injured whilst on their property".

Found this for you General, might be of some interest. Protect ur Home

From the California penal code with regards to the use of deadly force in the home:

"...resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury..."

AFAIK, this is a stipulation to the use of deadly force in a lot of states in the US, mine included, if not all of them.

In other words, if a guy comes in, totally unarmed, and you're a big guy fully capable of defending yourself, you can't use deadly force (e.g. firearms). If you're old and frail, you can pretty much feel free to open fire. If the intruder has a gun, it doesn't matter who you are.

This also means the resident cannot fire upon a fleeing intruder, because the intruder is no longer a threat. One cannot reasonably fear someone who is attempting to flee.

Quote from Fordman :

£2.7mil for Coffee to hot from Maccy D's

Except it's nowhere near as frivulous as it sounds - the coffee is heated at 180° C, which is enough to cause massive burns if it touches the skin for even a few seconds - it could be a much lower temperature, and a lot safer, but would take a few extra seconds to make... thats they where sued.

Quote from Jakg :

Except it's nowhere near as frivulous as it sounds - the coffee is heated at 180° C.

180F? Using the Celsius scale it would be superheated steam, which would indeed be quite dangerous but also unnecessarily difficult to make coffee with.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

180f? Using the celsius scale it would be superheated steam, which would indeed be quite dangerous but also unnecessarily difficult to make coffee with.

ha

You mean you don't just inhale your morning coffee?!

Weak...

as a person who has hospitalised a guy at 3 AM in my own apartment right after waking up from the break in noise, using a baseball bat, I say yeah... good point, have weapons. Also get proper locks for your door.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

180F? Using the Celsius scale it would be superheated steam, which would indeed be quite dangerous but also unnecessarily difficult to make coffee with.

No, Celsius - from memory it's pressurized so it can stay at that temperature as a liquid. Long time since I looked into it, but it's actually nowhere near as frivolous as it sounds.

Quote from Jakg :

No, Celsius - from memory it's pressurized so it can stay at that temperature as a liquid. Long time since I looked into it, but it's actually nowhere near as frivolous as it sounds.

Are you sure you don't mean farenheit? I think it's probably farenheit.

Let's pretend you said farenheit and forget this whole silly business! :drink:

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Are you sure you don't mean farenheit? I think it's probably farenheit.

Let's pretend you said farenheit and forget this whole silly business! :drink:

It was indeed fahrenheit. Yes I was bored. Sauce

Balls.....

Quote from Jakg :

No, Celsius - from memory it's pressurized so it can stay at that temperature as a liquid. Long time since I looked into it, but it's actually nowhere near as frivolous as it sounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ... _McDonald%27s_Restaurants

"McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds."

EDIT: Beaten. :P