[Tricks]

How is this even a debate? If someone has broken into my house one of us will not leave alive. And I've got the advantage.

[Curtman]

jeff744 jeff744:

How do you know they don't plan to kill your entire family and then rob you? Not all 6 will still be in the house when their buddy drops dead from a point blank shotgun blast, they will be crossing the street pretty fast, to them you are just a easy source of money and not worth risking their lives.

Not true. They enjoy intimidating people, and making a show of it. Like after they shot my friend Jeff, they would visit Jeff's mom at The Bay downtown where she worked and threaten her. They'd come to their house at night to bang on windows, and yell at them. If there wasn't volunteer off-duty officers kind enough to sit in front of the house 24 hours a day, they would have done much worse. These aren't petty thugs looking for money. These are people who listen to gangsta rap, and think they are the people in the songs. They don't care about your money, they care about their stupid "rep".

[Canadian_Mind]

Knew it was a personal problem. Sadly, no matter what you do, you will forever be submitting your will and freedom to them so long as you are afraid of pissing them off.

Again sounds like something that could be solved by being properly prepared to defend yourself. If these so-called "gangsta's" have me to the point of being intimidated, I have a right to defend myself. And I'd sooner die on my feet defending myself than live on my knees in cowardace.

Besides, what good is street cred when they're dead?

[peck420]

Gangsta's tend to worry less about rep and more about the fecal matter in their pants when shots ring out.

[CommanderSock]

Some white knight is going to get himself killed trying to be a hero.

[DrCaleb]

Curtman Curtman:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

You might be willing to take a chance and risk the safety of your family, but most people aren't.

Well you and Lemmy can escalate the robbery to homicide if you like. But you are the ones endangering your families.

That's the whole point of the legislation. If someone is invading your home, it will be legal to defend your home with lethal force without having to retreat from your home. They are the ones endangering my family by invading my home.

And it's happening with some regularity now. People from the city travelling to the rural towns to commit home invasions for who knows what reasons.

$1:

Airdrie RCMP General Investigation Section is investigating a home invasion that occurred in the Luxstone community.

The incident occurred the morning of Nov. 14 at a single-family home in Luxstone.

Several masked males dressed entirely in black broke through the front door of the residence and assaulted the 30-year-old male resident.

At one point during the assault, one of the assailants pointed what is described as a short shotgun at the victim and the assailants demanded drugs and money.

The victim was bound by his attackers but managed to free himself once the assailants departed.

The males stole several items from the house, including the victim's wallet, cell phone, and LCD television.

http://www.airdrieecho.com/ArticleDispl ... ?e=3371641

I don't know why people can't get a simple concept through their head. The police investigate crime. That's their job. They protect property when they can, but it's not their job. It's our job to protect ourselves, and these laws allow us to do just that.

Curtman Curtman:

Not true. They enjoy intimidating people, and making a show of it. Like after they shot my friend Jeff, they would visit Jeff's mom at The Bay downtown where she worked and threaten her. They'd come to their house at night to bang on windows, and yell at them. If there wasn't volunteer off-duty officers kind enough to sit in front of the house 24 hours a day, they would have done much worse. These aren't petty thugs looking for money. These are people who listen to gangsta rap, and think they are the people in the songs. They don't care about your money, they care about their stupid "rep".

I'm sorry about your friend, but a 12 gauge does a remarkable job of either convincing people that their behaviour is unacceptable, or ensuring the behaviour will not be repeated.

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Some white knight is going to get himself killed trying to be a hero.

Better to go down defending themself and their family than being not allowed to defend them at all. And they just might take a decent sized honour guard with them.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

jeff744 jeff744:

How do you know they don't plan to kill your entire family and then rob you? Not all 6 will still be in the house when their buddy drops dead from a point blank shotgun blast, they will be crossing the street pretty fast, to them you are just a easy source of money and not worth risking their lives.

Not true. They enjoy intimidating people, and making a show of it. Like after they shot my friend Jeff, they would visit Jeff's mom at The Bay downtown where she worked and threaten her. They'd come to their house at night to bang on windows, and yell at them. If there wasn't volunteer off-duty officers kind enough to sit in front of the house 24 hours a day, they would have done much worse. These aren't petty thugs looking for money. These are people who listen to gangsta rap, and think they are the people in the songs. They don't care about your money, they care about their stupid "rep".

Frankly, Curtman there is a time and place to be cautious of these people. I honestly get what you're saying, I've had an unwise run in with these types as well where I pushed back when I didn't need to.

However, the time to stop being afraid is when the cross the line and enter your house. It's one thing when they are rummaging out in the shed, it's another if they are in my living room. It's at that point that all my use of force training, military combat training, and a hickory axe handle meet the bad guy and wait for the cue on what will happen.

Is there the potential for a long term consequences with payback? Yes. However, being a target that does nothing is less appealing than being a target that will do something. The bad guys will know this as well.

[SprCForr]

$1:

Some white knight is going to get himself killed trying to be a hero.

They already are.

IMHO the full support of our society should be helping them. I like the idea that the intended victim is getting a little support from our society in standing his ground.

[andyt]

You should be able to defend your life with lethal force, not your property. But what constitutes a threat to your life should be interpreted pretty broadly.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

You should be able to defend your life with lethal force, not your property. But what constitutes a threat to your life should be interpreted pretty broadly.

If someone is entering your home (property) how are you to know your life is in danger before you are actually dead?

Whereas, now the person breaking in now knows his life is in danger during the attempt and they can choose a different course of action.

[andyt]

If he's in the basement rooting around, call the cops. If he comes up the stairs, all bets are off.

[Unsound]

andyt andyt:

If he's in the basement rooting around, call the cops. If he comes up the stairs, all bets are off.

What's with the common sense? There's no place for that in this increasingly bitter and partisan political climate.

[Canadian_Mind]

I agree with you Andy. If someone lunges or swings at you in the dark, who knows if they got a knife or bat on them. Even if it turns out he had no weapon and you offed him, you should get off scott-free. In the time it would have taken you to identify if they were deadly armed or not, you could very well be dead. Point is, if you feel your life is threatened, you should be allowed to defend it up to and including deadly force. And with it, give benefit of the doubt to the homeowner/dweller, and leave the onus on the prosecution to prove that your acted out of anything but self defence, if there is a reason for it.

As an example, to play devils advocate, what if it is your kids fucking around downstairs during a power outage, and one of them suddenly turns to face you with a flashlight? Common sense would dictate that you wouldn't shoot, you have to identify IF there is a threat or not. But someone is going to make that an argument. And they'd be right. Sure as shit if this law passes, some idiot will pull the trigger or swing an ax killing his 10 year old who was only trying to get the fucking TV to turn on for saturday morning cartoons.

Another example could be luring someone to your home with intent of killing them and accusing them of B&E.

But I'm of the viewpoint that it is more important to enable the 99% of people who will use these new laws properly to their benefit with no adverse consequences (other than blood on the floor), then to cut it down because 1% of people are winning Darwin Awards.

The creation of this law is also goes hand in hand with why I advocate more libertarian gun laws. No I don't think everyone should be carting around Ak-47s, Glocks (well, maybe), and C6s on a daily basis. I don't see why a person shouldn't be allowed to have either 1 shotgun (buckshot and slugs only) or 1 pistol (9mm or less) in the home. Their choice of which. The weapon would't have to be locked up in a gunsafe, only within the confines of the "Master" bedroom, which should have a door that has a childproof lock on it. Have ammunition also readily accessible near the weapon itself (shotgun in closet, shells in nightstand). Grant licences for these weapons only with proper instruction of their use when an adequate level of technique is mastered (know how to aim). If they are used for anything but home defence, or taken out of the home for anything but maintenance at a gunshop, charge the owners, seize the weapons, and revoke the licences for X number of years.

[andyt]

What exactly are you disagreeing with? There's nothing in what you said that remotely covers what I said.

$1:

Point is, if you feel your life is threatened, you should be allowed to defend it up to and including deadly force. And with it, give benefit of the doubt to the homeowner/dweller, and leave the onus on the prosecution to prove that your acted out of anything but self defence, if there is a reason for it.

You're restating what I said, if your life is threatened, you should be allowed to defend it. A guy rooting around your basement isn't threatening your life. Even before the change, the onus was on the prosecution as it always is. But to mount a defence, you had to basically be close to being killed before you could use lethal force, now you can act sooner. Good. But it shouldn't mean you can just charge into your basement and blow away the guy who's stealing your TV. Doubt if even this new legislation will allow that.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

What exactly are you disagreeing with? There's nothing in what you said that remotely covers what I said.

Re-read it. I said I agree with you Andy. Happenes a couple times lately.

And I was referring to this post.

andyt andyt:

You should be able to defend your life with lethal force, not your property. But what constitutes a threat to your life should be interpreted pretty broadly.

I was playing devils advocate about having a broad spectrum of what should be considered a threat to ones life.