Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

These is a forum for this.

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

These is a forum for this.

---

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Who knows maybe his drug addiction may have even gotten worse and he would have ended up holding up 7/11s for cash next.

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

Any complaints can be directed towards our Music Director

---

Originally by: Gabbot

---

Edited by: Gabbot on 23/07/2008 02:29:54


Though, he did get shot in the BACK of the head and 3 seperate guns were fired, which suggests that the shooter had enough time to fire and pick up the 2 other guns (shotguns fired first, handgun fired last) by which time the victim was running from the scene, the force used should have been less lethal, but albiet it is regretable.

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

These is a forum for this.

---

Originally by: Gabbot

---

If only cloning was possible like it was in eve.
Then the burgular would be able to have his juvenile anus widened in prison, the parents would be happy, the guy who shot him could live easier AND the burgular wouldnt lose any skillpoints!

---

Quote:

---

Saban Ferizi, BerisajÆs father, said Wednesday it doesnÆt make sense that someone can kill another person and not spend any time in jail.

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Edited by: Buff Plankchest on 23/07/2008 04:27:00
There's less lethal, not non-lethal... and no one is going to fire off a CS gas grenade in their house.

Also, less lethal require a lot more skill to use, cost a lot more, and have to be used at a very close range... and at close range things move fast and civilians just can't handle that.

*Edit: It's just easier, ok?

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Imo Jeff McGuire should be charged with murder.
He shot and killed a juvenile for attempting to break in.

---

Originally by: Roxanna Kell

---

You are insane.

---

Originally by: Victor Valka

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Imo Jeff McGuire should be charged with murder.
He shot and killed a juvenile for attempting to break in.

---

The little miscreant had it coming.

Contemplate if you will.

Someone is trying to break into your house/apartment. You can't know why they are doing in - maybe they are here to rob you, maybe they are here to harm you or your family. Maybe they are here to rob you but will not hesitate to harm you or yours if they get into their way. You are going to assume the worse! And you are going to do what any sane person would do - protect you and yours. It's completely within bounds of logic.

I don't see how using deadly force in such a situation would seem unreasonable.

---

Originally by: Sirikar Nakasoroki

---

wow its so sad to see something like that. The guy had 6 guns in his house, holy crap who needs 6 guns. The kid never even made it in the door and considering his was shot in the back of the head kind of shows he tried to run after the first shot was fired. Tbh its a travesty of justice that someone can justify using that much force to prevent a burglery.

---

Originally by: Angela Toren

---

In defence there is no 100% sure way to ensure that the events which are said to have happened are accurate. Therefore justice could not possibly have been served as all you have is one mans word and a dead kid on his porch with a bullet in his head.

sht, you could stage a robbery if you wanted to legally kill someone in the US.

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/07/2008 04:20:53
...according to the report
...according to the report
...according to the report

what a mess

though I don't believe lethal force should be allowed even to be used against criminals considering just how many non-lethal alternatives are available.

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Oh well, too many people in the world anyway

---

Originally by: Jenny Spitfire

---

I will not liek human meat but the naerest I tried is human chesse. I don't want to tried again ...

---

Quote:

---

...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...

---

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

I can only imagine what would have happened if this has occurred in the UK. The news would be all over it for months, you'd get liberals and conservatives smacktalking each other on comfy sofas in chat shows, there would be a 6 month long trial for the shooter, he'd get sentenced to 3 months or something ridiculous (for possession of a gun, not the actual shooting) and serve none of it because there aren't enough cells in UK prisons.

---

Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar

---

Quote:

---

Saban Ferizi, BerisajÆs father, said Wednesday it doesnÆt make sense that someone can kill another person and not spend any time in jail.

---

That's hilarious

---

Originally by: Eternal Error

---

I don't understand how people think there is too much force when defending yourself and/or your family on YOUR property. As long as the dude is coming at you, it is HIS issue, not yours. If I saw an arm coming through my door and trying to get into the house, you bet I'd be beating the shit out of it.

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

seems he's spent his summer vacation wisely... stupid kid got what was coming to him, also, its not included in the story, but after he shot the kid Mr. McGuire indeed shouted BOOM HEADSHOT.

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

I think, unless events have been distorted significantly, that he did the right thing. For all he know an armed thug was breaking in.
When someone is trying to break in in a country like America, you shoot first an ask questions later. When trying to break in somewhere in a country like America, expect to be shot at.

I'm just glad I live in a country in which guns are not necessary for protection.

---

Originally by: Jenny Spitfire

---

I will not liek human meat but the naerest I tried is human chesse. I don't want to tried again ...

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

I think, unless events have been distorted significantly, that he did the right thing. For all he know an armed thug was breaking in.
When someone is trying to break in in a country like America, you shoot first an ask questions later. When trying to break in somewhere in a country like America, expect to be shot at.

I'm just glad I live in a country in which guns are not necessary for protection.

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

America is not a country

---

Quote:

---

...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Originally by: Eternal Error

---

I don't understand how people think there is too much force when defending yourself and/or your family on YOUR property. As long as the dude is coming at you, it is HIS issue, not yours. If I saw an arm coming through my door and trying to get into the house, you bet I'd be beating the shit out of it.

---

Because people are stupid, and are always assuming the worst. There is a lot of disorted people around in the world, and if they are allowed to defend their property with letal force it will cause more harm then good.

Imo lethal force should only be allowed when your defending your own or inocent peoples lives. Thats where the line should be drawn, not when someone is on your porch.

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

P.S. America is not a country


Slade

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

McGuire just assumed the worst, which he had every right to do and I applaud him for it. He fired 3 shots, which lets face it, if the man had a license to carry concealed weapons, he knew what he was doing, and his response was probably textbook, seeing as they dont just give those licenses out, you must go through a long background check before getting one of those.

What probably happened was that the first 1 or 2 shots probably scared the kid off, so he turned around to run away, and thats when the third shot probably caught him in the head. As I said, for all McGuire knew, the burglar had a gun and was planning on killing him.

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

P.S. America is not a country

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

McGuire just assumed the worst, which he had every right to do and I applaud him for it. He fired 3 shots, which lets face it, if the man had a license to carry concealed weapons, he knew what he was doing, and his response was probably textbook, seeing as they dont just give those licenses out, you must go through a long background check before getting one of those.

What probably happened was that the first 1 or 2 shots probably scared the kid off, so he turned around to run away, and thats when the third shot probably caught him in the head. As I said, for all McGuire knew, the burglar had a gun and was planning on killing him.

---

Of course with such a policy you have full understanding for burglars that carry weapons to defend them self also?

---

Originally by: Kappas.

---

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

I can only imagine what would have happened if this has occurred in the UK. The news would be all over it for months, you'd get liberals and conservatives smacktalking each other on comfy sofas in chat shows, there would be a 6 month long trial for the shooter, he'd get sentenced to 3 months or something ridiculous (for possession of a gun, not the actual shooting) and serve none of it because there aren't enough cells in UK prisons.

---

Well, remember that farmer that either killed or injured a burglar in his house? He got jailed for it.

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

If the burglar somehow previously acquired a license to carry concealed weapons and was carrying a gun to "defend" himself (youre really stretching your argument thin here Akiba), then I guess he's going to use it. But lets not talk semantics here, we all know that the intentions of burglars with a weapon is usually not to defend himself

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Also, what if McGuire had shoot somone else, whos intentions where not to rob him? (just some random confused person) Should he be charged with murder then?

---

Originally by: Roxanna Kell

---

You are insane.

---

Originally by: Victor Valka

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Also, what if McGuire had shoot somone else, whos intentions where not to rob him? (just some random confused person) Should he be charged with murder then?

---

Random confused persons don't break windows in order to open doors. I think we can agree that it's a rather specific behavior.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

If the burglar somehow previously acquired a license to carry concealed weapons and was carrying a gun to "defend" himself (youre really stretching your argument thin here Akiba), then I guess he's going to use it. But lets not talk semantics here, we all know that the intentions of burglars with a weapon is usually not to defend himself

---

Im not talking semantics, you are. I dont think im stretching my arguments at all. Every human has the right to defend their own lives.
If you give someone the right to kill, you must expect the other part to defend itself. This incident will probably cause more burglars in that area to arm them self and be ready to shoot first.

Also, what if McGuire had shoot somone else, whos intentions where not to rob him? (just some random confused person) Should he be charged with murder then?

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

No

---

Originally by: P'uck

---

Edited by: P''uck on 23/07/2008 12:37:17
I wonder how long it takes til the first ****-drunk guy gets the wrong door late at night, somewhere in the suburbs where one house looks like the other and then doesn't wake up with a hangover next the morning, because he has no head anymore.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

No

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

Nobody is giving them the right to kill necessarily. By allowing them to own a weapon (and I mean legally own one, with background check and all), you are giving them the right to defend themselves.

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

Now, we all have the right to walk the streets freely, but if we decide to abuse this right and break into other people's homes for no reason, then prepare for the owner of said home to exercise his right to DEFEND his or herself and his or her property.

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

And obviously you havent been around too many burglaries, because lots of burglars DO carry weapons, and they arent for defense, they are to attack anyone who gets in their way, provoked or not.

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

And for the record, Ive never met any person be so "confused" that they felt the need to break into any place they perceived as their own home.

---

Originally by: P'uck

---

Edited by: P''uck on 23/07/2008 12:39:30
I wonder how long it takes til the first ****-drunk guy gets the wrong door late at night, somewhere in the suburbs, where one house looks like the other, and then doesn't wake up with a hangover next morning because he has no head anymore.

edit; i can already see the responses HE WAS A BURDEN TO SOCIETY ANYWAYS!

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

People that own guns dont have any more rights then others.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

C'mon, Leathal force for attempting breaking in? Only americans is that crazy.
Just a simple "hello??" would probably have scared him of. Did he fire a warning shot? nope, 3 shots to the head, just to be sure.
Giving someone right to defend whats theirs is not the same as giving them right to kill everyone they think is committing a crime on their property.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Actually i have, and your assumption is not correct. This is just guessing from your part.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Who you have met or not, is not relevant.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

C'mon, Leathal force for attempting breaking in? Only americans is that crazy.
Just a simple "hello??" would probably have scared him of. Did he fire a warning shot? nope, 3 shots to the head, just to be sure.
Giving someone right to defend whats theirs is not the same as giving them right to kill everyone they think is committing a crime on their property.

---

Originally by: northwesten

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

C'mon, Leathal force for attempting breaking in? Only americans is that crazy.
Just a simple "hello??" would probably have scared him of. Did he fire a warning shot? nope, 3 shots to the head, just to be sure.
Giving someone right to defend whats theirs is not the same as giving them right to kill everyone they think is committing a crime on their property.

---

in all honesty if there 3 shots fired to the head then he should be charged as its over use of fire arms! Tho I would shot him but hit his leg so the sucker cant run! If he armed I will fire if he doesnt comply with my command to put the weapon down! If I can I go by the British Army Rules of Engagment if I can.

I mean not like UK they come in with a baseball bat most times there armed and people been killed because they were rubbing there house. and ****d I know because It happened to a friend of mine! in 2004 :(

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

is there some law against rubbing houses?

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

No

---

Originally by: Flash Bombardo

---

I think the homeowner was completely justified in shooting the intruder. Anyone forcing entry into your house whilst you're in it has to be stopped by whatever means necesarry.

Of course in Britain, the homeowner would be sent to prison whilst the boys junkie mother would be given councilling, benefits and a free whale watching holiday.

---

Originally by: Jago Kain

---

If they ever decide to award a Nobel Prize for Emo, Lord MuffloN is a sure fire winner of the first on

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Originally by: Victor Valka

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Imo Jeff McGuire should be charged with murder.
He shot and killed a juvenile for attempting to break in.

---

The little miscreant had it coming.

Contemplate if you will.

Someone is trying to break into your house/apartment. You can't know why they are doing in - maybe they are here to rob you, maybe they are here to harm you or your family. Maybe they are here to rob you but will not hesitate to harm you or yours if they get into their way. You are going to assume the worse! And you are going to do what any sane person would do - protect you and yours. It's completely within bounds of logic.

I don't see how using deadly force in such a situation would seem unreasonable.

---

It also depends on who the shooter is... let's say the shooter is a 60 year old man with arthritis. That sets in your mind he is a very feeble old man that can't do anything if attacked.

On the other hand, say the shooter is a 22 year old Force Recon Marine... then yes, he used way more force than would be needed

---

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Edited by: Buff Plankchest on 23/07/2008 04:27:00
There's less lethal, not non-lethal... and no one is going to fire off a CS gas grenade in their house.

Also, less lethal require a lot more skill to use, cost a lot more, and have to be used at a very close range... and at close range things move fast and civilians just can't handle that.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

I see the arguments have finally turned stupid. What if he was confused? What if he was drunk? What if he was a wheelchair bound autistic child being smuggled into the country?

Some of the rest of you seem to be content with losing your 32" plasma flatscreen tv that you worked hard for and some of you seem content with being injured/maimed/killed/****d by some one in your home who isn't supposed to be there. Maybe I should become a burglar since we have so many who are so willing to roll over and let it happen. As for me though, I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.

---

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Arvald

---

0_o.............damn id like to live right next to your house, who needs a security system when you have a one man army living next door (and come on ak47? ill take an m16 over an ak any day)

---

Originally by: Yuri Orlov

---

Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Arvald

---

0_o.............damn id like to live right next to your house, who needs a security system when you have a one man army living next door (and come on ak47? ill take an m16 over an ak any day)

---

Originally by: Yuri Orlov

---

Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars.

---

---

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.

---

This works for you, but what is the opportunity cost of accidental and wrongful deaths to families and society as a whole? There's nothing wrong with defending your property, but the problem is that while there is a large range of how threatening someone is to your life and property, there are only a few types of means to defend yourself.

No one wants to under react to a threat (because if you do, you will get beaten/robbed/****d/killed), so you will over react by default as a precaution, which leads to someone getting shot 3 times in the head for attempted breaking and entering.

What if there was a weapon that had all the same advantages of a gun but would simply knock someone out for a couple of hours instead of kill them? This is the kind of weapon we need to defend our homes with.

---

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

This works for you, but what is the opportunity cost of accidental and wrongful deaths to families and society as a whole? There's nothing wrong with defending your property, but the problem is that while there is a large range of how threatening someone is to your life and property, there are only a few types of means to defend yourself.

No one wants to under react to a threat (because if you do, you will get beaten/robbed/****d/killed), so you will over react by default as a precaution, which leads to someone getting shot 3 times in the head for attempted breaking and entering.

What if there was a weapon that had all the same advantages of a gun but would simply knock someone out for a couple of hours instead of kill them? This is the kind of weapon we need to defend our homes with.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.

---

This works for you, but what is the opportunity cost of accidental and wrongful deaths to families and society as a whole? There's nothing wrong with defending your property, but the problem is that while there is a large range of how threatening someone is to your life and property, there are only a few types of means to defend yourself.

No one wants to under react to a threat (because if you do, you will get beaten/robbed/****d/killed), so you will over react by default as a precaution, which leads to someone getting shot 3 times in the head for attempted breaking and entering.

What if there was a weapon that had all the same advantages of a gun but would simply knock someone out for a couple of hours instead of kill them? This is the kind of weapon we need to defend our homes with.

---

Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist

---

Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?

---

Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist

---

Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?

---

Originally by: Plumpy McPudding

---

Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist

---

Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?

---

Finally Zoidberg is a crafty consumer.
Hello...I'll take 8!!

---

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist

---

Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?

---

Would need a class 3 license for that. No sir, I've got 4 30 round clips, 2 of them being combined. If I can't hit someone at 10-15ft in 60 shots then I deserve whats coming to me.

---

Originally by: Arvald

---

IF that kind of weapon was as effective as disabling a person and as easy to use as easy to obtain and as cheap as a normal handgun/bullets shure id definately use it, but as i see it if someone breaks into mu home they their rigths are forfeit and they deserve to get shot/cracked over the head with a baseball bat

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Again with the 'what if's'. I don't deal with what if's if someone is breaking into my house. I'll repeat, if the locks don't deter them, if the barking dog doesn't deter them, then they WILL meet the business end of a AK-47.

I live by a simple rule in life: You can do anything you want to but YOU have to pay for the consequences.

If you want to rob a house, that's great, just keep in mind it may be your last mistake.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Arvald

---

IF that kind of weapon was as effective as disabling a person and as easy to use as easy to obtain and as cheap as a normal handgun/bullets shure id definately use it, but as i see it if someone breaks into mu home they their rigths are forfeit and they deserve to get shot/cracked over the head with a baseball bat

---

No one's rights are ever forfeit under the rule of law. That's why they're rights instead of privileges or liberties.

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Again with the 'what if's'. I don't deal with what if's if someone is breaking into my house. I'll repeat, if the locks don't deter them, if the barking dog doesn't deter them, then they WILL meet the business end of a AK-47.

I live by a simple rule in life: You can do anything you want to but YOU have to pay for the consequences.

If you want to rob a house, that's great, just keep in mind it may be your last mistake.

---

That's an easy decision for you to make, because someone interested in robbing your house would have made their intentions much more clear by intentionally bypassing the various other means you have of dissuading people from entering your home.

But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home? Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?

What is the overall cost to the health care system (additional injuries or death, grief counseling) and the justice system (hearing/trial costs for the property owner in addition to the criminal)? What is the cost in how people view each other? The issue is much larger than the individual property owner vs. the thief.

---

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

no license can allow you to own a fully automatic firearm

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist

---

Might I recommend the AK-74 with the GP25 underbarrel grenade launcher?

---

Would need a class 3 license for that. No sir, I've got 4 30 round clips, 2 of them being combined. If I can't hit someone at 10-15ft in 60 shots then I deserve whats coming to me.

---

someone has been playing too much bf2... and, afaik and unmodified ak-47 straight from the ruskie factory that turned it out, is prohibited.. period.. no license can allow you to own a fully automatic firearm.. or if your in like mexico its a different story, pix of ak or stfu plox

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Some of the rest of you seem to be content with losing your 32" plasma flatscreen tv that you worked hard for and some of you seem content with being injured/maimed/killed/****d by some one in your home who isn't supposed to be there. Maybe I should become a burglar since we have so many who are so willing to roll over and let it happen. As for me though, I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Killing eachother with AK-47 over 32" plasma flatscreens now are we?

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

pix of ak or stfu plox

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

someone has been playing too much bf2... and, afaik and unmodified ak-47 straight from the ruskie factory that turned it out, is prohibited.. period.. no license can allow you to own a fully automatic firearm.. or if your in like mexico its a different story

---

Quote:

---

What does "C & R" mean?
C & R stands for Curio and Relic, which is a classification of articles and firearms as specified by BATF. Some states (like MI) require that machine gun owners also be federal C&R License holders, but anyone can buy a C&R gun. Also, if you have a C&R license and purchase a C&R gun it may be shipped directly to you once the transfer is approved, rather than to a Class 3 Dealer in your state before tranfer to you.
You return the completed Form 4's to the in-state dealer, along with (2) passport size photos, (2) fingerprint cards, (1) citizenship authorization, and a transfer tax check made payable to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the one time per item transfer tax. A $200.00 transfer tax applies to Short BBL Shotguns, Short BBL Rifles, Machine Guns and Suppressors; a $5.00 transfer tax applies to items classified as Any Other Weapons - "AOW".

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

That's an easy decision for you to make, because someone interested in robbing your house would have made their intentions much more clear by intentionally bypassing the various other means you have of dissuading people from entering your home.

But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home?

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

What is the overall cost to the health care system (additional injuries or death, grief counseling) and the justice system (hearing/trial costs for the property owner in addition to the criminal)? What is the cost in how people view each other? The issue is much larger than the individual property owner vs. the thief.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Some of the rest of you seem to be content with losing your 32" plasma flatscreen tv that you worked hard for and some of you seem content with being injured/maimed/killed/****d by some one in your home who isn't supposed to be there. Maybe I should become a burglar since we have so many who are so willing to roll over and let it happen. As for me though, I've got a personal arsenal of around a dozen guns and if the locks on my doors don't deter them, if a barking dog doesn't deter them, then they will meet the business end of a AK-47 and I will not stop to ask them a questionnare about their state of mind or their use of force. Criminals will not think twice about the crime.

---

Killing eachother with AK-47 over 32" plasma flatscreens now are we?

Tick tock, tick tock.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

That's an easy decision for you to make, because someone interested in robbing your house would have made their intentions much more clear by intentionally bypassing the various other means you have of dissuading people from entering your home.

But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home?

---

Turn on the front porch light (first deterrant)

---

Quote:

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?

---

They make locking mailboxes (First deterrant). you can also go to your post office and attain a P.O. Box (even better)

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

But what about situations where the intentions someone trespassing on your property are more ambiguous? Is a suburban homeowner justified in shooting someone who looks like they're sneaking around in the front yard of his home?

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Or someone who looks like he's stealing your mail (after all, the mail is just as much your property as anything else you own)?

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

No

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.

---

Originally by: Mazzarins Demise

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.

---

I'd say a visible weapon such as a knife or gun. I don't think I'd shoot and ask questions later though. I would attempt to goad the individual to surrender while I have the firearm pointed at him. If he continues to be abrasive and does not surrender or attempts to withdraw a concealed weapon, I will shoot him in either the leg or arm. That's what I'd hope I do anyway. Rage, adrenaline and fear make a powerful and dangerous combination when you feel these feelings while holding a gun.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The reason for the what-ifs is that I'm interested in knowing what crimes committed on your property warrant the use of deadly force.

---

Why didn't you just say so?

---

Originally by: Mazzarins Demise

---

I will shoot him in either the leg or arm.

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

Originally by: Mazzarins Demise

---

I will shoot him in either the leg or arm.

---

Doesn't usually work like that.

Fortunately, center-of-mass shots aren't automatically fatal, even if you're packing hollowpoints. Of course, for all the humanity one may wish to show in the defense of their own life...it's crazy what can happen in a civil court if the "badguy" lives.

It's all a bit of a mess. Somebody earlier said they think it's crazy that a person who kills another person may not be legally held responsible...I think it's crazy that if you legitimately use lethal or near-lethal force in the self-defense against a would-be criminal, you could end up paying damages to that criminal.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

I think that most of the disagreement comes from what different people consider legitimate.

---

Originally by: Fink Angel

---

In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Fink Angel

---

In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.

---

I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.

---

Originally by: Jenny Spitfire

---

I will not liek human meat but the naerest I tried is human chesse. I don't want to tried again ...

---

Originally by: Zephyr Rengate

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.

---

Surprise sex?

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Fink Angel

---

In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.

---

I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.

---

Originally by: Reem Fairchild

---

The fact that people who post stupid things get instant and honest feedback letting them know how stupid they are, is one of the best qualities of the Eve forums.

---

Originally by: Arvald

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Fink Angel

---

In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.

---

I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.

---

hahaha the mental picture of you leaping from the top of the stairs in your underwear right on top of someone

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Arvald

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Fink Angel

---

In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.

---

I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.

---

hahaha the mental picture of you leaping from the top of the stairs in your underwear right on top of someone

---

Make sure you add the infamous "NINJA, ATTACK!" quote from tmnt into that mental picture

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

These is a forum for this.

---

Originally by: Drax Darksun

---

The shooter will also, probably, be battling with this for the rest of his life.

---

Originally by: Wendat Huron

---

It was only an american after all, we deported them for good reasons to begin with.

---

Originally by: Robert Rosenberg

---

I absolutely support that this kid died. And all the wishy washy liberals in this thread who think that the kid should not have died disgust me. I hope you idiots turn your swords into plowshares so that greater men can lead you to something exceptional.

---

Originally by: Sakura Nihil

---

PS, I am a liberal. Don't paint all of us as tree-huggers, we try not to paint you all as radical religious extremists.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Sakura Nihil

---

PS, I am a liberal. Don't paint all of us as tree-huggers, we try not to paint you all as radical religious extremists.

---

The religion thread is a few pages back.

Maybe I shouldn't mention that.......

---

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

---

with a gun you have 5-29 more shots.

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Edited by: Buff Plankchest on 23/07/2008 04:27:00
There's less lethal, not non-lethal... and no one is going to fire off a CS gas grenade in their house.

Also, less lethal require a lot more skill to use, cost a lot more, and have to be used at a very close range... and at close range things move fast and civilians just can't handle that.

*Edit: It's just easier, ok?

---

The problem is that people are using weapons designed to kill in situations where it isn't neccessary.

Less-lethal alternatives (for instance, rubber/plastic bullets) would be just as effective at stopping an intruder; only the liklihood of killing is drastically lower.

---

Originally by: Sakura Nihil

---

PS, I am a liberal. Don't paint all of us as tree-huggers, we try not to paint you all as radical religious extremists.

---

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

---

So what about the costs when someone breaks into your house methed up, sees you, beats and ****s you, then takes your stuff.

sounds more expensive then a few 9mm rounds.

---

Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar

---

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

---

So what about the costs when someone breaks into your house methed up, sees you, beats and ****s you, then takes your stuff.

sounds more expensive then a few 9mm rounds.

---

on a side note .22 rounds are ridiculously cheap, 2-3 cents

---

Originally by: Roxanna Kell

---

You are insane.

---

Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar

---

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

---

So what about the costs when someone breaks into your house methed up, sees you, beats and ****s you, then takes your stuff.

sounds more expensive then a few 9mm rounds.

---

on a side note .22 rounds are ridiculously cheap, 2-3 cents

---

Originally by: Gabbot

---

If only cloning was possible like it was in eve.
Then the burgular would be able to have his juvenile anus widened in prison, the parents would be happy, the guy who shot him could live easier AND the burgular wouldnt lose any skillpoints!


(Tactless lvl 3)

---

Originally by: Victor Valka

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Also, what if McGuire had shoot somone else, whos intentions where not to rob him? (just some random confused person) Should he be charged with murder then?

---

Random confused persons don't break windows in order to open doors. I think we can agree that it's a rather specific behavior.

---

Originally by: 50freefly

---

Uh, no. Rubber bullets unless shot very well do nothing but aggravate the intruder, and at best temporarily incapacitate them.

NOTHING is as effective at stopping something than making it dead.

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/07/2008 04:20:53
...according to the report
...according to the report
...according to the report

what a mess

though I don't believe lethal force should be allowed even to be used against criminals considering just how many non-lethal alternatives are available.

---

Originally by: 50freefly

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Edited by: Buff Plankchest on 23/07/2008 04:27:00
There's less lethal, not non-lethal... and no one is going to fire off a CS gas grenade in their house.

Also, less lethal require a lot more skill to use, cost a lot more, and have to be used at a very close range... and at close range things move fast and civilians just can't handle that.

*Edit: It's just easier, ok?

---

The problem is that people are using weapons designed to kill in situations where it isn't neccessary.

Less-lethal alternatives (for instance, rubber/plastic bullets) would be just as effective at stopping an intruder; only the liklihood of killing is drastically lower.

---

Uh, no. Rubber bullets unless shot very well do nothing but aggravate the intruder, and at best temporarily incapacitate them.

NOTHING is as effective at stopping something than making it dead.

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

u r rong :< rubbber bullets are a bit more effective than you think young grasshopper

---

Originally by: Robert Rosenberg

---

Rubber bullets are not very effective against some chav punk so high on PCP that a tazer would just energize him to stab me faster.

---

Originally by: Bistot Kid

---

Originally by: Robert Rosenberg

---

Rubber bullets are not very effective against some chav punk so high on PCP that a tazer would just energize him to stab me faster.

---

"PCP, Angel Dust. Guy probably broke every bone in his hand."

Oh wait, where's the sci-fi qoute thread?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

lol rednecks

---

Originally by: The TX

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

lol rednecks

---

I love the short answers best - they make me titter inside.

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Originally by: Rawrior

---

u r rong :< rubbber bullets are a bit more effective than you think young grasshopper

---

especially if you unscrew the rubber (plastic projectile) and fill your barrel with PP9s

Originally by: Robert Rosenberg

---

Rubber bullets are not very effective against some chav punk so high on PCP that a tazer would just energize him to stab me faster.

---

Originally by: Sudiin S

---

Back on topic.. I don't know what's worse, loosing a laptop and/or some other electronics or the loss of a young life which could have potentially gone good at some point of his life. I mean what did the guy have to fear so much from a kid even if he was a burglar!!??
Ohwell... it's almost pointless to do justice in a country such as the USA.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Sudiin S

---

Back on topic.. I don't know what's worse, loosing a laptop and/or some other electronics or the loss of a young life which could have potentially gone good at some point of his life. I mean what did the guy have to fear so much from a kid even if he was a burglar!!??
Ohwell... it's almost pointless to do justice in a country such as the USA.

---

Sweet argument random alt. Say could you tell me where you live, I would like to find your laptop and sell it for crack. I can't be held accountable though for the people who find personal information on your laptop and later bleed your bank account dry leaving you behind on payments and thousands in debt henceforth completely destroying your life for several months but you appear to have no issue with that.

Address pls?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Why dont we all just shoot each other and be done with it?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Does it make me sound very idealistic when i say that i believe that no-one deserves to die for a petty crime like that?

What does this make you think?

---

Originally by: Eternal Error

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Does it make me sound very idealistic when i say that i believe that no-one deserves to die for a petty crime like that?

What does this make you think?

---

So if you hear a noise in the middle of the night while you and your family are home and go downstairs to find someone breaking in through the door, you're just going to stop and stand there and ask him his age and whether or not he is armed?

---

Originally by: Gabbot

---

Edited by: Gabbot on 23/07/2008 02:29:54
If only the UK had any idea about gun laws....

Though, he did get shot in the BACK of the head and 3 seperate guns were fired, which suggests that the shooter had enough time to fire and pick up the 2 other guns (shotguns fired first, handgun fired last) by which time the victim was running from the scene, the force used should have been less lethal, but albiet it is regretable.


Also, he owned a number of guns, but was unable to incapacitate the burgular on the first shot? This worries me, are inexperienced shooters allowed to own a number of guns now....wow

---

Originally by: Sudiin S

---

Back on topic.. I don't know what's worse, loosing a laptop and/or some other electronics or the loss of a young life which could have potentially gone good at some point of his life. I mean what did the guy have to fear so much from a kid even if he was a burglar!!??
Ohwell... it's almost pointless to do justice in a country such as the USA.

---

Originally by: Dantes Revenge

---

UK is far too soft on crime and we have to use "reasonable force" to deter a criminal. The end result is that the crime rate has gone skyrocketing.

---

Originally by: Dantes Revenge

---

Kids as young as 3 and 4 are being taught to steal by crooks

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Originally by: Dantes Revenge

---

UK is far too soft on crime and we have to use "reasonable force" to deter a criminal. The end result is that the crime rate has gone skyrocketing.

---

Could you please direct me to some documentation supporting this claim? I would be very interested in reading it.
thx.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Buff Plankchest

---

Edited by: Buff Plankchest on 23/07/2008 04:27:00
There's less lethal, not non-lethal... and no one is going to fire off a CS gas grenade in their house.

Also, less lethal require a lot more skill to use, cost a lot more, and have to be used at a very close range... and at close range things move fast and civilians just can't handle that.

---

I think this is the real problem, honestly.

No one is arguing that someone doesn't have the right to defend their family and home. The problem is when the only tools capable of doing the job well are lethal, which leads to people getting killed. Just because someone was killed doing something irresponsible, it doesn't make his or her death right (a more nuanced issue, but ideally).

This isn't really about the shooter, it's about the tools we as a society have to defend ourselves from domestic threats and how they fall short in several regards. We need non-lethal weapons that are as effective and as intimidating as guns. It's possible, we just need the funding and political will to develop them.

---

Originally by: Eternal Error

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Does it make me sound very idealistic when i say that i believe that no-one deserves to die for a petty crime like that?

What does this make you think?

---

So if you hear a noise in the middle of the night while you and your family are home and go downstairs to find someone breaking in through the door, you're just going to stop and stand there and ask him his age and whether or not he is armed?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I wont shoot him, thats for sure. If everyone thought like you people the world would be even less enjoyable than it already is. Way to go.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Fink Angel

---

In reality, we're all big and clever posturing here on the forums, but if it actually happened to us, I'd like to think people would give their actions some thought at least before blowing anyone away with their firearm of choice.

---

I prefer more old-fashioned techniques, to be honest. Large blunt objects or fists are optimal. Hell, even if someone breaks into your home they're walking around in a dimly lit, unfamiliar location. Perfect place for an ambush.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I wont shoot him, thats for sure. If everyone thought like you people the world would be even less enjoyable than it already is. Way to go.

---

I didn't realize being robbed, mugged, or ****d was enjoyable. Then again like they say about the internet: If you can think of it chances are theres a fetish for it.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I wont shoot him, thats for sure. If everyone thought like you people the world would be even less enjoyable than it already is. Way to go.

---

I didn't realize being robbed, mugged, or ****d was enjoyable. Then again like they say about the internet: If you can think of it chances are theres a fetish for it.

---

If everyone thought like you it certainly wont be, no. What the **** is with all the pessimism? How about you stop being afraid of your shadows?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

least possible amount of prejudice

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.

---

Originally by: Crumplecorn

---

These is a forum for this.

---

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Edited by: pwnedgato on 25/07/2008 23:15:49

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

least possible amount of prejudice

---

lol.

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.

---

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Make sure you give me your address please. As long as I'm robbing the other guy who's willing to lay over and play dead I mighta well hit up your hard earned lifestyle as well.

I tell you this thing I've been doing my whole life of working hard for my way of living has been all wrong.

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

Those who believe that the poor boy "had it coming" are heartless and have no respect for human life.

Those who insist that the homeowner should have acted otherwise are idealistic and ignore the realities of split-second decisions.

The truth is, the entire situation is terribly sad. That the teenager fell into crime ought to be the source of much dismay. And that we live in a society wherein citizens feel that firearms are necessary to defend themselves is a sign of our dysfunction. Both stories reveal failures of modern social order, and instead of playing blame games or talking about how much this kid deserved his fate, any reasonable and compassionate human being should read this kind of story and wonder, "how did we come to this?"

This is not to deprive the child of agency - he certainly made decisions, poor ones, which led to his death. But why should a 15-year-old ever be in a position to make such a decision? The article indicates that he worked with an older compatriot, and that there may have been two others with him that night. A person, particularly an impressionable adolescent, does not grow up in a social vacuum. Environmental (in the broad sense) forces play a huge role, and surely in this case, the young Berisaj was led astray as much as he constructed his own demise. As a member of society, it is only responsible to recognize and help eliminate the causes of juvenile delinquency, including abusive families (or bad home situations in general), poor or nonexistent educational programs, lack of positive role models, etc. The persistence of these circumstances serves no beneficial purpose. And while their eradication would not by any stretch of the imagination end crime, it would be a monumental step toward the betterment of the lives of vulnerable youths and of society at large.

Mr. McGuire, as the victim of this intrusion, holds the other narrative. The use of deadly weapons against a burglar seems excessive. Since he had a good enough idea of the intruder's location to shoot him, could Mr. McGuire not have used a flashlight to startle him? Beyond the petty game of what-ifs, in some ways this story emphasizes the need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that only lethal force is sufficient. But while all of these ideas are well and noble, in the end it is far easier to say how just and fair we would have been, or could have been, when we are not faced with an adrenaline-fueled decision. What Mr. McGuire did says more about the way we are conditioned to react to threats than it does about him as a person. The record of his reaction in the aftermath suggests that he was a man of conscience, placed into a situation in which there was no right answer.

That Mr. McGuire would feel the need to own firearms for self-defense tells a sad story of the consequences of crime; he was no doubt affected by his experience as the victim of prior burglaries. Violent criminals are to blame as well for effecting fear for one's life when faced with a home invasion. Yet as explained above, it is ignorant at best to pretend as though the criminals are beings of pure maliciousness who deserve nothing but the most unforgiving punishments. They, just as all of us, are products of their environments, at least in part.

Both parties bear partial responsibility, and both were victims in a way. To assign blame either way after the fact accomplishes exactly nothing. Better, then, to look at a terrible story such as this one and consider how it is that our ostensibly good and just society is in such a state, and how we can make it so that these sorts of things never happen in the first place. I should hope that no one would contend that life is better with burglars and shootings than without, or at least with fewer.

</soapbox>

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

Those who believe that the poor boy "had it coming" are heartless and have no respect for human life.

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

That Mr. McGuire would feel the need to own firearms

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

That Mr. McGuire would feel the need to own firearms

---

Just a FYI firearms aren't just for self defense. I've fired literally thousands of rounds and none of them have ever been fired in self defense.

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

That Mr. McGuire would feel the need to own firearms

---

Just a FYI firearms aren't just for self defense. I've fired literally thousands of rounds and none of them have ever been fired in self defense.

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

Those who believe that the poor boy "had it coming" are heartless and have no respect for human life.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

That Mr. McGuire would feel the need to own firearms

---

Just a FYI firearms aren't just for self defense. I've fired literally thousands of rounds and none of them have ever been fired in self defense.

---

Regardless how or why he owned them, he apparantly felt the need to fire upon someone he could barely see or knew intentions of. It was not self-defence, he wasnt being threatened in anyway. Stop being afraid of your shadows.

---

Originally by: Eternal Error

---

Alright, I read this article and would like to see some opinions out of interest. Personally, I think getting shot and killed is an occupational hazard of breaking and entering people's homes. Let's see what you think

15 year old burglar shot dead

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

That Mr. McGuire would feel the need to own firearms

---

Just a FYI firearms aren't just for self defense. I've fired literally thousands of rounds and none of them have ever been fired in self defense.

---

Regardless how or why he owned them, he apparantly felt the need to fire upon someone he could barely see or knew intentions of. It was not self-defence, he wasnt being threatened in anyway. Stop being afraid of your shadows.

---

Originally by: morhe

---

well i live in texas and there is a law in texas that states " if you put a fence up all the way around your property, with a posted sign that says all treepassers will be shot( the sign has to be on each side of the fence) then you can shot and kill all who go onto your land" for those of you that think i am lying please look it up! and i havce shot at one person that was trying to steal gas from my truck! he jumped the fence and i heard a noise and looked out side then grabed a shotgun and fires off 3 rounds ( did more damage to my truck than him) but the cops got him down the road i beat he wont steal from me again

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

That Mr. McGuire would feel the need to own firearms

---

Just a FYI firearms aren't just for self defense. I've fired literally thousands of rounds and none of them have ever been fired in self defense.

---

Regardless how or why he owned them, he apparantly felt the need to fire upon someone he could barely see or knew intentions of. It was not self-defence, he wasnt being threatened in anyway. Stop being afraid of your shadows.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Originally by: Frankinator

---

Nobody is giving them the right to kill necessarily. By allowing them to own a weapon (and I mean legally own one, with background check and all), you are giving them the right to defend themselves.

---

People that own guns dont have any more rights then others.

Originally by: Frankinator

---

Now, we all have the right to walk the streets freely, but if we decide to abuse this right and break into other people's homes for no reason, then prepare for the owner of said home to exercise his right to DEFEND his or herself and his or her property.

---

C'mon, Leathal force for attempting breaking in? Only americans is that crazy.
Just a simple "hello??" would probably have scared him of. Did he fire a warning shot? nope, 3 shots to the head, just to be sure.
Giving someone right to defend whats theirs is not the same as giving them right to kill everyone they think is committing a crime on their property.

Originally by: Frankinator

---

And obviously you havent been around too many burglaries, because lots of burglars DO carry weapons, and they arent for defense, they are to attack anyone who gets in their way, provoked or not.

---

Actually i have, and your assumption is not correct. This is just guessing from your part.

Originally by: Frankinator

---

And for the record, Ive never met any person be so "confused" that they felt the need to break into any place they perceived as their own home.

---

Who you have met or not, is not relevant.

---

Originally by: Akiba Penrose

---

Originally by: Eternal Error

---

I don't understand how people think there is too much force when defending yourself and/or your family on YOUR property. As long as the dude is coming at you, it is HIS issue, not yours. If I saw an arm coming through my door and trying to get into the house, you bet I'd be beating the shit out of it.

---

Because people are stupid, and are always assuming the worst. There is a lot of disorted people around in the world, and if they are allowed to defend their property with letal force it will cause more harm then good.

Imo lethal force should only be allowed when your defending your own or inocent peoples lives. Thats where the line should be drawn, not when someone is on your porch.

---

Originally by: Isabel Icahn

---

Criminals are not soulless, lifeless, mindless husks filled with an eternal rage against all that is good in the world, whose only rightful place is at the business end of a weapon or six feet under.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Edited by: Sokratesz on 25/07/2008 23:20:56

Originally by: pwnedgato

---

Edited by: pwnedgato on 25/07/2008 23:15:49

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

least possible amount of prejudice

---

lol.

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.

---

---

when one person goes insane its a delusion, when a group goes insane its a religion. but lets not do that here

---