"The people have spoken, the bastards!"

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-06 07:08am

Master of Ossus wrote:I think that any "Home Defense" style bill should mandate that the person feels his life or health (or those of another individual) are being placed in imminent danger, AND that a felony is being perpetrated.

I'd prefer an objective/subjective test, rather than subjective only. This is old hat in the common law, but it should be put in legislation for clarity's sake: does the person feel his life or those of another are being placed in imminent danger, *and* is this a reasonable belief (using the old common law standard of the mythical 'reasonable person').

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2004-01-06 07:53am

In the case of firearms, I think there should be a warning shot first. Then a quick adjustment to tell the guy to freeze or get drilled. Only if the criminal fails to respond would justify a shot to maim or kill.

Of course, firing off a warning shot in your own home might be a trifle tricky...

The Wobbly Guy

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-06 09:07am

The_Nice_Guy wrote:In the case of firearms, I think there should be a warning shot first. Then a quick adjustment to tell the guy to freeze or get drilled. Only if the criminal fails to respond would justify a shot to maim or kill.

Of course, firing off a warning shot in your own home might be a trifle tricky...

The Wobbly Guy

Random gunfire always has a happy ending after all.

If that bullet richochets and hits a third party you are liable. Very BAD idea.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-06 09:48am

Col. Crackpot wrote:Random gunfire always has a happy ending after all. If that bullet richochets and hits a third party you are liable. Very BAD idea.

Perhaps if people stopped using rifles and AP rounds for "home defense", a bullet passing through two walls and hitting somebody in the next house might not be as likely.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-01-06 09:55am

Almost no one uses a rifle (other than perhaps a .22) for home defense.

Shotguns and handguns are the most popular defense weapons against burglars and such.

Now if we're talking about defending against rioters trying to burn you down like what happened to the Korean shopkeepers in LA, a high capacity medium power semiauto rifle (such as an AR-15 or AK clone) is indeed the way to go.

AP ammo in pistol calibers is illegal for civilians to possess.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-01-06 09:57am

Addendum.

Non-AP rounds in full power rifle ammo (such as the .30-06 and 7.62x54R) can pierce sheet steel easily enough and can defeat most 'soft' body armor of the type worn by the police.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2004-01-06 02:26pm

So if we can assume that most people use handguns and shotguns, does it make a warning shot mandatory? It's a suitable level of force and threat, after all.

Even then, as Glocksman mentioned, holding a criminal at gunpoint for the cops to arrive carries its own set of risks.

The Wobbly Guy

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-06 02:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:Random gunfire always has a happy ending after all. If that bullet richochets and hits a third party you are liable. Very BAD idea.
Perhaps if people stopped using rifles and AP rounds for "home defense", a bullet passing through two walls and hitting somebody in the next house might not be as likely.

anyone who uses any type of jacketed round for home defense is either incredibly paranoid of just plain reckless.... especially in densely populated areas Hollowpoints would reduce the likelyhood of a bullet tearing through walls and hitting bystanders. The downside is that hollowpoints tumble upon entry into flesh and do tremendous tissue damage.

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-01-06 03:33pm

The_Nice_Guy wrote:So if we can assume that most people use handguns and shotguns, does it make a warning shot mandatory?

No, it would be ridiculous for a law to stiupulate a mandatory warning shot. Even with hollowpoint, the bullets can still pass through the thin plaster of most homes. While you might not hit a neighbor, you very well could hit a loved one in your own home.

If someone broke into my home, I'd give him a chance to surrender, provided it did not put my life in unnecessary rick.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2004-01-06 03:44pm

While you might not hit a neighbor, you very well could hit a loved one in your own home.

Yeah, which is why I did mention

Of course, firing off a warning shot in your own home might be a trifle tricky...

In the end, I guess it's better safe than sorry. Just a warning shot, or holding the guys at gunpoint, or whatever, is up to the discretion of the home owner. It's his right to defend his home, after all.

The Wobbly Guy

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-01-06 03:57pm

Sorry. I was replying to your second post.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-01-06 04:32pm

The_Nice_Guy wrote:So if we can assume that most people use handguns and shotguns, does it make a warning shot mandatory? It's a suitable level of force and threat, after all.

If you are wearing body armour, if you have a full clear view of the burglers, if you have the time to assess the risk they pose to you & your family, if you know their intentions in breaking into your house, and probably a few more "ifs". If all the abover were true then yes, go ahead and fire a warning shot & hold them at gunpoint till the cops arrive, providing the perps co-operate with you, hey look, that's another "if". Fact is real life never works like that, in real life the perp crashes through your door in the dead of night and you have only moments to take action if you're lucky. If you're unlucky you might get to see your family tortured and killed before your eyes before you get thrown in the trunk of a car and tossed off a bridge.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-06 05:43pm

The cocking sound of a 12 gauge pump-action should be more than enough to make the intruder question their actions unless they're the stupid "Shoot first, ask questions later" type that doesn't know when to quit.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-01-06 07:16pm

Warning shots are a bad idea. If the person is a deadly threat to you, you may waste indespensible seconds firing that warning shot. If the person is not a deadly threat to you then what are you shooting for? And there is that issue that the warning shot may overpenetrate or ricochet and injure or kill a third party. On my department, we are expressly forbidden to fire warning shots under any circumstances. Basically, you are only to fire your gun when circumstances are grave enough to require you to take a life. If you have the leisure to fire a warning shot, circumstances are not that grave yet, and your gun should not be fired.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2004-01-06 07:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:Random gunfire always has a happy ending after all. If that bullet richochets and hits a third party you are liable. Very BAD idea.
Perhaps if people stopped using rifles and AP rounds for "home defense", a bullet passing through two walls and hitting somebody in the next house might not be as likely.

IIRC true AP rounds for rifles and handguns are illegal for most civilians to even process them.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-01-06 07:39pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:Random gunfire always has a happy ending after all. If that bullet richochets and hits a third party you are liable. Very BAD idea.
Perhaps if people stopped using rifles and AP rounds for "home defense", a bullet passing through two walls and hitting somebody in the next house might not be as likely.

I've seen regular FMJ pistol ammo penetrate through entire houses. I investigated one such case about two months ago, where such a round came in a window, passed through three interior walls, then through an outer wall and aluminum siding, before proceeding down about a half a block to lodge in the door frame of a Honda Accord. This was a standard 9mm FMJ round. And given how light interior walls are (especially in modern houses, with drywall instead of the old lathe and plaster walls), even a JHP round might have penetrated all these barriers. This is one of the main reasons why a warning shot is not a good idea.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-01-10 02:02am

Okay I mean to stay away from the Gun debate for now, and comment on a few things. Firstly the MP can not be said to have treated his consituency badly, he treated the listeners of a Radio Station, So he was dealing with people across a much wider area, to say that this is obviously how he treats those who vote for him cannot be said.

Two This is not an example of bringing democracy back to the people, nor can it be said to have been the Country that spoke, or anything else. It was only the listeners of that show that have spoken, and even then only a percentage of those people. The MP in question was a fool to have agreed to have said he would do this, the Show where Idiots to have done this, and god-damnit the papers are Idiots to treat the incident with any seriousness.

In fact about the only time the MP acted like an MP was in his outburst. At least then he showed some backbone and conviction.

Now onto the various Laws....

I am against a blanket permission to defend your home by any force, in the end it is an emotional time being burgled I admit but never worth a life. Things are just things, Defence of yourself, any reasonable force I agree, defence of others again... but defence of Things?

The Health care stuff, again I support this idea, but I support the opt out idea fully. There are often reasons why a person might opt out, sometimes religious sometimes personal, even in death a person should be allowed the dignity of going to their graves the way they wish too.

The Smoking Ban, I oppose a straight Ban. I Support however a compromise, I believe two licences for Bars should exist the first being for a Non-Smoking Bar, this should be an easier licence to get than the Smoking Licence, in this way if a Bar Owner feels he or she would make a better profit allowing Smoking they can attempt to gain that licence, but other Bar Owners will be able to get the easier one if they wish. Hopefully you would arrive at a situation where Smokers can go for a Smoke and a Drink and non-Smokers can go for a drink and all can be happy.

The X-Mass decorations, While I hate the fact that Christmass advertisments seem to come earlier every Year a law on the matter would just be pointless, and hard to enforce. Also so many exceptions would have to be written in, for instance Christmass hamper advertisments, they often start soon after Christmass so you can pay a little off every Year. The law would be so large and so beurcratic that it would just be a waste of time.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-01-10 03:03am

Skelron wrote:I am against a blanket permission to defend your home by any force, in the end it is an emotional time being burgled I admit but never worth a life. Things are just things, Defence of yourself, any reasonable force I agree, defence of others again... but defence of Things?

I'm alll for it. Because the fact that it can be done tends to make it unnecessary. When a burgar knows ahead of time that if he invades someone's home there's a good chance the homeowners will be scrubbing his brains off the wallpaper the next morning, it makes him think three times before invading someone's home.