Gun Owner Loses Permit after Firing on Shoplifters

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.

**Nostromodamus**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I think it kinds of boil down to how much people in the U.S. distrust their own democratically elected government…

With good reason.

It's also not as democratically elected as you might think, especially at the higher echelons.

**Frazzled**

Thats part of the history. The other part of the history is that this whole nation was a frontier nation. At one point every square foot of it was "the dangerous frontier." While that frontier moved west, those memories linger and in the Western states thats relatively recently.

There was no or minimal government to help you. Inversely there were lots of things and people who wanted to harm you.

**Rune Stonegrinder**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I think it kinds of boil down to how much people in the U.S. distrust their own democratically elected government…

How have they earned my unconditional trust? They haven't and could never earn it. It is the right of the people in this country to question our public officials. We are not granted rights by the government as with most democracy's, we give the government its ability to govern under our direction.

**SilverMK2**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
We are not granted rights by the government as with most democracy's, we give the government its ability to govern under our direction.

I have always enjoyed this particular bit of delusion.

**Rune Stonegrinder**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
We are not granted rights by the government as with most democracy's, we give the government its ability to govern under our direction.

I have always enjoyed this particular bit of delusion.

Which part; first part, second, or both? I'll admit most people in the US are sheeple and leave the government to do what it wants, but that's part of the larger problem. Concepts of: "we the people" and "for the people, by the people" are not ideals in all democracies.

http://constitutionus.com/

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Technically, we are a represented republic, which is a distinction most US citizens can't seem to grasp. We could debate that democracy and a represented republic have very little in common, other than a represented rebublic is based on some of foundations of democracy. In general most people find it a "potato, potaato" argument, so I'd rather not continue it.

**LordofHats**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I'll admit most people in the US are sheeple

We could debate that democracy and a represented republic have very little in common, other than a represented rebublic is based on some of foundations of democracy. In general most people find it a "potato, potaato" argument, so I'd rather not continue it.

Oh god please no. That road is so beaten it's a canyon.

**SilverMK2**

Both parts. All democratically elected governments govern with a mandate from the people. All democratically elected governments have limits to their powers. All democratically elected governments grant certain rights to the people they govern. No rights are universal, absolute, or unviolatable. All democratically elected governments are capable of acting against the wishes of the people and even actively harming them. All governments are capable of ignoring, adding or revoking any rights and laws they wish.

"We the people" was not written by consensus of all the people of the United States of America. Nor is it much more than words, however noble they may be, in the face of government.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I have a keen interest in the 2nd amendment (It's a fascinating subject to study) and I'm very much on the side of people wanting to defend their homes from intruders at 3am. You're damn right I'd want to be returning fire!

But I heard an interesting story today, and it leads me on to a question for American Dakka members who own guns

Say for example you were friends with Robert Downey Jnr, and say you bought a house off him...

and say 8 years later, it was 3am, and you were asleep, and somebody breaks into your house, and you go down stairs to discover...

Robert Downey Jnr, who got so drunk, he still thinks he lives in that house he sold you 8 years ago

What would you do?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have a keen interest in the 2nd amendment (It's a fascinating subject to study) and I'm very much on the side of people wanting to defend their homes from intruders at 3am. You're damn right I'd want to be returning fire!

But I heard an interesting story today, and it leads me on to a question for American Dakka members who own guns

Say for example you were friends with Robert Downey Jnr, and say you bought a house off him...

and say 8 years later, it was 3am, and you were asleep, and somebody breaks into your house, and you go down stairs to discover...

Robert Downey Jnr, who got so drunk, he still thinks he lives in that house he sold you 8 years ago

What would you do?

If it's a situation where we're legit friends, Id probably push him to the couch and have him sleep it off, wake up the wife to let her know that he's sleeping on the couch.

If it's a situation where "I bought a house off some dude a bunch of years ago, but didn't know him beyond buying the house"... he may or may not be leaving under his own power.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have a keen interest in the 2nd amendment (It's a fascinating subject to study) and I'm very much on the side of people wanting to defend their homes from intruders at 3am. You're damn right I'd want to be returning fire!

But I heard an interesting story today, and it leads me on to a question for American Dakka members who own guns

Say for example you were friends with Robert Downey Jnr, and say you bought a house off him...

and say 8 years later, it was 3am, and you were asleep, and somebody breaks into your house, and you go down stairs to discover...

Robert Downey Jnr, who got so drunk, he still thinks he lives in that house he sold you 8 years ago

What would you do?

Why break out the bourbon of course, but in plastic glasses. Safety first!

**Kilkrazy**

Lock him in cellar for ransom.

Or other things...

**Nostromodamus**

Probably point my shotgun at him and tell him to GTFO.

Failure to comply results in waiting for cops to escort him out.

Coming at me results in ventilation.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I appreciate the answers from everybody

I still can't believe that Downey Jnr actually did that

**Kilkrazy**

There was a case a couple of years ago when a householder shot someone who was approaching his house in a suspicious manner and having killed him found out it was his son.

**Rune Stonegrinder**

SilverMK2 wrote:
All democratically elected governments govern with a mandate from the people.

So all democracies are "of the people"? While the dictionary states just that, several types in the first link ignore that all together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

Again the US is not a democracy we are a represented republic.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Most of our problems here are occurring fully do to the career politician. We used to be a nation who voted for congressional officials that had roots (jobs or businesses) in our communities. They knew what hardships that the local people faced, and represented their constituents. Those days are gone and now. They intern for years for another career politician, learning more of how to exploit the powers of government for an agenda not for the people.

SilverMK2 wrote:
All democratically elected governments are capable of acting against the wishes of the people and even actively harming them.

While this has happened, it certainly does not take away the right of the US people to control their own government if they so wished. As state most people are sheeple and tend to not take interest because they feel powerless to change anything.

SilverMK2 wrote:
"All governments are capable of ignoring, adding or revoking any rights and laws they wish."

Again that's part of the larger problem, people allow the government to dictate here, however its not supposed to be that way in the US.

SilverMK2 wrote:
"We the people" was not written by consensus of all the people of the United States of America.

Most back then could not read or write so thus trusted their representatives to ensure freedom from tyranny. Sight your proof please.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
There was a case a couple of years ago when a householder shot someone who was approaching his house in a suspicious manner and having killed him found out it was his son.

Well I hope he/she went to prison to live with the guilt. Idiots such as that do not represent the majority of lawful gun owners

**LordofHats**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Again the US is not a democracy we are a represented republic.

Democracy is a method of determining political will. Republic is a means of organizing political power.

These two things are not mutually exclusive and in fact frequently occur together (given the impracticality of direct democracy as a method of governance).

**Co'tor Shas**

LordofHats wrote:
Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Again the US is not a democracy we are a represented republic.

Democracy is a method of determining political will. Republic is a means of organizing political power.

These two things are not mutually exclusive and in fact frequently occur together (given the impracticality of direct democracy as a method of governance).

Yep. We are a Democratic-Republic.

**Grey Templar**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Most back then could not read or write so thus trusted their representatives to ensure freedom from tyranny. Sight your proof please.

Thats not really true. People during the 1700s were far from uneducated country bumpkins. Literacy was actually fairly high and most people could read and write.

**LordofHats**

Especially in the American colonies. We were actually quite literate for the time

**Nostromodamus**

LordofHats wrote:
Especially in the American colonies. We were actually quite literate for the time

Pity it didn't last

**LordofHats**

Alex C wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Especially in the American colonies. We were actually quite literate for the time

Pity it didn't last

Pft. We don't need to read. We have money!

**Grey Templar**

That was when schooling was almost entirely private. And it was viewed as a privilege, because it was. Every farm boy and girl who had access to a school went to one, even if they would have had no practical need for it.

**Nostromodamus**

LordofHats wrote:
Alex C wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Especially in the American colonies. We were actually quite literate for the time

Pity it didn't last

Pft. We don't need to read. We have money!

You sound ripe for Congress.

**Grey Templar**

Alex C wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Alex C wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Especially in the American colonies. We were actually quite literate for the time

Pity it didn't last

Pft. We don't need to read. We have money!

You sound ripe for Congress.

Its how Obama-care went through. Nobody read it

**Rune Stonegrinder**

I guess I could have stated many rather than most...

Democratic-Republic VS Represented Republic..... Semantics

Did you guys read this?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:That was when schooling was almost entirely private. And it was viewed as a privilege, because it was. Every farm boy and girl who had access to a school went to one, even if they would have had no practical need for it.

Our literacy rates were at their worst in the Antebellum period (when education was still private). Some states actually dipped close to an estimated 30% (there was a notable correlation between slaves per house hold and literacy, so you can guess where it was at it's worse).

Alex C wrote:

You sound ripe for Congress.

I'll take the oath over a Sombrero with a flamboyant feather

**Co'tor Shas**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I guess I could have stated many rather than most...

Democratic-Republic VS Represented Republic..... Semantics

Did you guys read this?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

But the majority can take away rights. No right is unable to be taken away. All that is required is to pass a new amendment. Which is 2/3rds of both houses of congress, and 3/4ths of the states.

**Chongara**

Yodhrin wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Henry wrote:
From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’

The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.

See... this is partially why I like where I live. In essence I am "Louis XIV" of my individual house. Ergo, if 'you' are in my house uninvited... off with his head!!!

I strongly disagree with the notion that if I'm dealing with a "polite burglar" I must respond in a "polite" manner approximately equal to the burgling.

Why? I'll lay out a scenario, to help you understand exactly how bloodthirsty this kind of comment sounds:

I am in the UK, in my home. A criminal breaks in to my home and starts stealing things. I, holding an improvised but potentially deadly weapon(lets say, a fire iron), confront the criminal, with one of the following outcomes:

Outcome A: the criminal, upon seeing an angry me holding a big fething metal stick, immediately surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police.

Outcome B: the criminal attempts to flee my home as I chase them out, and I catch up to them as they are almost at my front gate.

Outcome C: the criminal fights me and loses, he surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police and the ambulance required to treat his serious injuries.

Outcome D: the criminal reacts with total fury and attempts to murder me with a weapon.

Now, when you say you should have the right to "Louis XIV" up the place on anyone who enters your home without permission(and I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you're not actually mental, and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally), what you sound like you're saying is you feel you should have the right to use whatever level of violence you pleased in any of those four scenarios. Now, you might not mean that, you might have a scenario in your head that's a lot like Outcome D, in which case you'd be fine under UK law, but in any of the others you'd be screwed and justifiably so, because allowing people to respond to criminal behaviour with behaviour that would also be criminal in any other circumstances(attacking an unarmed person who poses no threat or chasing down and beating an unarmed person who poses no threat) is borderline vigilantism. Hell, it's exactly vigilantism; the original crime is over, the criminal isn't even threatening property let alone life; the immediacy of their previous actions does not change the fact that they are exactly that - previous.

More than the legal argument though, I'm absolutely baffled by people who believe they should have the right to defend property(as in, the items someone is attempting to steal) with deadly force(assuming there is no extant threat to the life of you or any other inhabitants of the house). I don't care how low an opinion you(*plural, nonspecific) have of petty criminals, believing their life is worth less than your(*plural, nonspecific) iPad is sociopathic. But then we're talking about folk who grew up in a country that still has the death penalty, so I don't know why I'm surprised.

EDIT: As for the whole "assumption of nefarious intent" issue - the problem there is the guns, not the law. If you caught someone trying to pick your locks in the UK you could assume bad intent as well, the difference is giving them a few kicks or belting them over the back with a rake handle isn't going to turn them into hairy jam like a shotgun blast would.

This also isn't really the whole picture because it doesn't consider outcomes where you don't confront them with a weapon. If we're considering outcomes in terms of family safety the option most likely to keep loved ones safe is simply to not engage at all. A burglar is just that, he's out for your stuff. He's not out for your life and not out to molest your spouse or your kids or anything. Leave him alone and you'll be out a TV, maybe some loose electronics and whatever else he cart off before gets nervous and splits. Sure it sucks being a victim and you certainly have the right to protect your property but that's not really what we're trying to address. If the premise here is one specifically about keeping one's family safe, the only relevant question is: Of all possible chains of events once burglar has entered the home, which is the one that has the lowest probability of someone in your family getting hurt or killed? It's the one that avoids conflict entirely. Leave him alone and the chances anyone gets hurt are basically zero.

Any conflict with or without weapon increases the chance a bystander will get, hurt either by deliberate action or accident. Especially if we're bringing firearms into the equation on either side. Sure there exists the possibility the home invader is not a burglar and is some kind of more nefarious predator. However the chances of that are small and if you confront any given intruder the probability of the conflict harming someone you're trying to protect is greater than the probability that they're one of those nefarious predators.

**Co'tor Shas**

And you could just wait where you could stop them from getting to your family, without getting into conflict.

**LordofHats**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Given the URL, my hopes were low (and met). If one wants to throw down a rather pointless differentiation between broad political concepts that do not exist in conflict per se, I suppose it works but you'll have a hard time applying these criteria effectively to the various political systems around the world and through history. Really it would be more accurate to label the list as "Direct Democracy" vs "Constitutional Republic."

And because I like to knit pick; Greece and Rome were both Oligarchal Republics (in our modern sensibilities). Sure they had elections, but only specific people could vote or be elected in Greek cities states or the Roman Republic. The image of either as democracies in the modern term we usually think of a democracy is completely inaccurate and mostly born from the Enlightenment period, when the internal politics and structure of both was often subjected to whimsy rather than critical analysis.