Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Absolutely. An uninvited guest is an intruder. If your home has been compromised, then you don't know how many of them there are. Just because you can't see a weapon, doesn't mean he's unarmed. If you're armed, and need to search the house, then you can't leave him behind you unless he's totally secured- a state that you can't bring him to without lowering the guard that you need against his possible allies. Furthermore, warning him to get down on the ground will also broadcast your presence to everyone in the house. Admittedly, shooting them will too, but it leaves you without one threat to worry about. You can safely turn your back on that area of your house.

Always err on the side of caution rather than risk your family.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.

So what is the answer. Do you feel you should be able to kill anyone not invited on your property for any reason?

If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?

You just changed the argument from house to property. That's a big damn difference.

Wait why would I sneak up on them? I'm not Rambo. I secure the location of any relatives and canines and have the wife call the police. If its a home invasion you're already shooting. Neither of those conform to your scenario.

No, I'm assuming your CD collection is in your house. Someone has broken in your house ( you can't know if they know you're home or not, lets assume) and is rummaging through your CD collection. Replace CD collection with jewelry box or other property in your house. You would clearly hear them invading your house assuming they aren't a ninja or something, and you retrieve your weapon to confront them. Because they're busy stealing your stuff you get the jump on them, and they don't know you're there. THey don't have a weapon in hand. Should you or should you not have the right to shoot them. I dont think this is an unreasonable scenario.

Ok, I your scenario they are messing with a radio/CD collection correct?

Depending on location, they are ignoring the dog or dogs barking and or biting the living *(&(^ out of them? If so, that’s crazy and they are crazy. If not that means they have already left the house or are cowering in a corner (after all once TBone unleashes 8lb of wizzened wienie whup ass and the Shanker flanks him and takes out his hamstring, there’s no need for me). If they’ve left that’s a police matter. If they are in a corner then they can stay there until the police come.

So er, whats the issue? Are they actively fighting with the canine home defense force?

Frazzled wrote:Ok, I your scenario they are messing with a radio/CD collection correct?

Depending on location, they are ignoring the dog or dogs barking and or biting the living *(&(^ out of them? If so, that’s crazy and they are crazy. If not that means they have already left the house or are cowering in a corner (after all once TBone unleashes 8lb of wizzened wienie whup ass and the Shanker flanks him and takes out his hamstring, there’s no need for me). If they’ve left that’s a police matter. If they are in a corner then they can stay there until the police come.

So er, whats the issue? Are they actively fighting with the canine home defense force?

I'm not exactly asking specifically what you would actually do, but what you think you should have a *right* to do.

How about this. Someone without the dogs and what not gets the jump on someone who has invaded their home. Should you have the right to shoot them in the back without question?

I think you answered the question by your statement. "invaded their home."

Giving a warning gives the BG, well a warning , and creates the "bad tie" scenario of whodraws first. The GG has absolutely no knowledge whether the BG is armed or not, so the presumption has to be that they are armed. The GG is not police. They have not been trained and have no duty whatsoever to the BG.
So whether or not they yell "freeze" is up to the GG and the situation. But its a specific fact pattern each time, like mine was, so you can't say what the GG should do. But they DO have a right to protect themselves.

Frazzled wrote:I think you answered the question by your statement. "invaded their home."

Giving a warning gives the BG, well a warning , and creates the "bad tie" scenario of whodraws first. The GG has absolutely no knowledge whether the BG is armed or not, so the presumption has to be that they are armed. The GG is not police. They have not been trained and have no duty whatsoever to the BG.
So whether or not they yell "freeze" is up to the GG and the situation. But its a specific fact pattern each time, like mine was, so you can't say what the GG should do. But they DO have a right to protect themselves.

I'm using invading their home to mean entered without permission. In the scenario you would clearly draw first even if the "BG" has a weapon in his pocket unless you had really slow reaction times.

I'm not asking about protecting oneself. The scenario would end up with the police being called and saying " We have this kid with a .45 inch hole in the back of his skull, but the homeowner says he wasn't invited in and therefore shot him in the back, case closed, no harm, no foul". Should you have the right to shoot someone in the back for the simple reason that they are inside your home without permission? Keep in mind that if those are the only two people involved then you're just taking the owners word that he wasn't invited.

No thats potentially a bad draw. You've not said if the GG has drawn. You have said the BG's back is to him, so the GG has no clue what the BG has.

You can't do a blanket statement.
-The GG has the absolute right to defend himself and others.

-In many states the presumption is for the GG, because of cases that came occurred previously-mostly out fo the northeast, where the retreat rule evolved.

-Everything else is a fact pattern unique to that situation.

Frazzled wrote:No thats potentially a bad draw. You've not said if the GG has drawn. You have said the BG's back is to him, so the GG has no clue what the BG has.

You can't do a blanket statement.
-The GG has the absolute right to defend himself and others.

-In many states the presumption is for the GG, because of cases that came occurred previously-mostly out fo the northeast, where the retreat rule evolved.

-Everything else is a fact pattern unique to that situation.

But what I'm asking is that does someone who clearly has the upper hand with a weapon have the right to shoot someone in the back for no other reason than they entered the house uninvited. I'm not talking about a situation where you don't know what this individual is doing.

The scenario is you've caught some little punk that has broken into your house rummaging in your crap. Do you have the inalienable right to use force that is likely to take his life. I don't see why I can't propose that scenario. I don't think it would be unreasonable.

What time of night is it?

Why do you think GG has the upper hand?

Life is a fact pattern. Nothing is hard and fast.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.

Guns are reasonably widespread in more rural areas, we do have shootings in houses... most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.

I keep on getting this image in my head of me deciding to visit Frazzle IRL... unannounced... but due to jet lag turning up at night instead of during the day... "YEEEE HAWWWW!" I'll hear and *bam* :-/

Frazzled wrote:What time of night is it?

Why do you think GG has the upper hand?

Life is a fact pattern. Nothing is hard and fast.

I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....

Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.

There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0

Grignard, these hypothetical home invaders are not innocent- no matter how harmless you want to portray them, they are criminals that have violated your personal privacy and property. In their choice to do so, they have made themselves a threat until proven otherwise to the home and its occupants. If the homeowner feels that they are threatened, they should have an unequivocal right to do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat. Guns make it faster and less personally risky for a homeowner to do so.

They may have excuses for their behavior in the eyes of the justice system, but a man in his house does not have the justice system's perspective or burden of proof. Nor does he have several years to determine if the intruder is actually guilty.

Henners91 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.

Guns are reasonably widespread in more rural areas, we do have shootings in houses... most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.

I keep on getting this image in my head of me deciding to visit Frazzle IRL... unannounced... but due to jet lag turning up at night instead of during the day... "YEEEE HAWWWW!" I'll hear and *bam* :-/

That is different henners. Chasing someone down the road past your property is completely different than shooting someone on your property, armed or no.

Guns dont kill people...

AMERICANS with GUNS kill people!

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What time of night is it?

Why do you think GG has the upper hand?

Life is a fact pattern. Nothing is hard and fast.

I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....

Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.

There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0

Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What time of night is it?

Why do you think GG has the upper hand?

Life is a fact pattern. Nothing is hard and fast.

I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....

Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.

There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0

Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?

I'm not a legal scholar, does having the presumption in his favor mean he can shoot the guy in the back?

And it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of law and what is right or wrong, I think.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What time of night is it?

Why do you think GG has the upper hand?

Life is a fact pattern. Nothing is hard and fast.

I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....

Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.

There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0

Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?

I'm not a legal scholar, does having the presumption in his favor mean he can shoot the guy in the back?

And it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of law and what is right or wrong, I think.

What I am saying is.
If you're asking a legal question then its highly likely the GG can shoot the BG. Unless its california or the Northeast of course, then they'd make a statue for the BG.
If you're asking is it morally ok to do so then I'm saying thats a question of faith.

Gitzbitah wrote:Grignard, these hypothetical home invaders are not innocent- no matter how harmless you want to portray them, they are criminals that have violated your personal privacy and property. In their choice to do so, they have made themselves a threat until proven otherwise to the home and its occupants. If the homeowner feels that they are threatened, they should have an unequivocal right to do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat. Guns make it faster and less personally risky for a homeowner to do so.

They may have excuses for their behavior in the eyes of the justice system, but a man in his house does not have the justice system's perspective or burden of proof. Nor does he have several years to determine if the intruder is actually guilty.

So you can execute them?

Grignard wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...

You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.

Guns are reasonably widespread in more rural areas, we do have shootings in houses... most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.

I keep on getting this image in my head of me deciding to visit Frazzle IRL... unannounced... but due to jet lag turning up at night instead of during the day... "YEEEE HAWWWW!" I'll hear and *bam* :-/

That is different henners. Chasing someone down the road past your property is completely different than shooting someone on your property, armed or no.

Of course, I was just using it as an example to illustrate that Brits unfortunately do know their way around guns. It was right that he was jailed.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What time of night is it?

Why do you think GG has the upper hand?

Life is a fact pattern. Nothing is hard and fast.

I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....

Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.

There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0

Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?

I'm not a legal scholar, does having the presumption in his favor mean he can shoot the guy in the back?

And it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of law and what is right or wrong, I think.

What I am saying is.
If you're asking a legal question then its highly likely the GG can shoot the BG. Unless its california or the Northeast of course, then they'd make a statue for the BG.
If you're asking is it morally ok to do so then I'm saying thats a question of faith.

I'm asking should it legally be your right, not what the law actually says.

I am all for the Texas standard for self defense.
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used.

Thats limited by (here we're talking property but person would come into play as well)
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
62 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

SD of person:
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force
was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is
presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used

Henners91 wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote: If the homeowner feels that they are threatened, they should have an unequivocal right to do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat.

So you can execute them?

I tweaked your quote of me to what I feel was the relevant passage for this rebuttal.


Oh, definitely not. Execution is done to someone who has no ability to defend themselves. You can't execute someone who is an immediate threat to you. I think you could shoot them without any warning if you thought they were armed or were threatening one of your family. You definitely could NOT have them kneel on the floor, put your gun behind their head and pull the trigger. That would be murder, whatever their offense was.

I'm all for deadly force being applied against criminals actually doing their crime if they are or may be a threat to you and yours. If you've captured them, then you basically have to turn them over to the police. You're out of danger at that point, and get bonus points for ending the scenario non-fatally.

Gitzbitah has the way of it.

"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."

If someone is in my house, I wont go: "Gee, I'm sorry you had a gak childhood and are now committing crime to exist, I understand why you are stealing my stuff" bs! I will give them one chance to surrender and lay on the floor. If they decide that they will test my trigger finger it's too late for them.

My house was broken into 3 times in a 5 week span in October and November last year. The perpetrators were both meth addicts and one of them is still on the loose. They had weapons with them too, a prybar, a pellet psitol and a hunting slingshot. I don't care if they are outgunned, they broke the law, they pay the price for breaking in to my house. I live in SW Missouri so I know about real problems with meth, we're the capital of the country for it.

Henners91 wrote:How about just using an empty gun?

This has got to be, the dumbest idea that I have heard on this forum by a long shot outside regular 40k.

I would state the obvious, but a page and a half already covers that base.

Crytsal Meth, made BY Americans, FOR Americans.

Frazzled wrote:Crytsal Meth, made BY Americans, FOR Americans.

Yeah, pretty sad situation.

Frazzled wrote:I am all for the Texas standard for self defense.
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used.

Ok, that is what I was getting at. I have a serious problem with A, because it is the shooters word against a (probable) dead man. My understanding from reading that is according to that, you automatically have a right to use deadly force as soon as you can make a case for him *attempting* to enter your property. That even includes your car???? How does a dead man make a case that he wasn't trying to enter your car? So if someone is standing next to your car with a hammer, you can shoot him?? Without question?

So if the intruder becomes a viable target as soon as you say he was attempting to enter your property can you shoot a fleeing man, *on your property* in the back?

I think this is morally reprehensible and can only put our right to bear arms at risk. I think you should have to have probable cause of believing you are at risk of harm, or someone in the household. Forced entry alone shouldn't be enough

Yes its harder for the BG to defend hiumself after he's caught committing a crime and then compounds the stupidity. If only he hadn't tried to commit that crime he'd still be alive.

Everything else is morality on your part. I view it as the height of immorality to subject an innocent man to bankruptcy and the terror of a jail cell when he's the innocent person minding his own business.

The BG had a choice. The GG didn't.
Oh and as an aside, the law has jack to do with firearms. It says self defense. I can go Shawn of the Dead on the guy with a cricket bat in self defense.

I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.

As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.

The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.

Frazzled wrote:Yes its harder for the BG to defend hiumself after he's caught committing a crime and then compounds the stupidity. If only he hadn't tried to commit that crime he'd still be alive.

Everything else is morality on your part. I view it as the height of immorality to subject an innocent man to bankruptcy and the terror of a jail cell when he's the innocent person minding his own business.

The BG had a choice. The GG didn't.
Oh and as an aside, the law has jack to do with firearms. It says self defense. I can go Shawn of the Dead on the guy with a cricket bat in self defense.

The problem is that I'm not worried as much about actual criminals than the fact that it would be very easy for the shooter to manufacture the appearance of forced entry to commit cold blooded murder.

Also, I just don't agree that you can just freely administer death to someone just because they entered your property. Some petty criminal is more likely to need their behaviour corrected than to need a death sentence. Its wrong, wrong, wrong, from both a secular and judeo-christian standpoint. Hell, virtually any moral standpoint, and the laws of society should reflect such basic things as the sanctity of human life.

How long are our firearms rights going to last when teenagers making dumbass mistakes start showing up dead on suburban lawns. You think they'll last long???