Originally Posted by bulldogg

Doesn't matter Ted, in the states the perp will cap you to leave no witnesses. Dead men don't testify.

Pfff, where is the honour of the gentleman burglar... you know, the one that leaves a calling card so everybody knows he dun' it? What are we coming to?

Those days went goodbye with mandatory sentences and the three strikes rule as far as I can tell. My cousin was convicted at the age of 12 as the "youngest hitman in the state of California" according to the Oakland Tribune of the day. He was caught when he had a change of heart and brought his victim to the emergency room after beating him half to death with a 2X4 for $1000. The cops asked him what happened and he came clean expecting to receive a lenient sentence in exchange for cooperating. He'd seen too much tv.

He received the maximum sentence owing to the public outrage of the brutallity of it all and rightly so. But to my cousin he felt betrayed and figured he would have gotten the same sentence anyway so... he never made that mistake again. He is the only man I am truly scared of being in the same room with and wouldn't do it without a gun even though he is family and tells me he really "likes" me. And there are thousands like him who would not lose a wink of sleep over killing you and your family simply "because" so if a criminal breaks into your house how do you know if it is someone like him or some "gentleman"? You don't and in my judgement you err on the side of assuming the worst and protecting your family.

You shoot, and you shoot to kill without warning.

What is the world coming to? I guess those days have gone permanently. The answer to me is, should the law have been lenient because of what he did? In my opinion it should, but then again I am a softy. But the monster they have created, is so much worse!

Originally Posted by bulldogg"

Its too late for Europe and Europeans to own weapons. Like I said they went down that path already and gave it up, not just physically but mentally as well. Europeans by and large I have talked with at length are resigned to letting "the government handle it" in many many aspects of their lives, protection included. There is a vast cultural rift between the US and Europe.

You know I was talking about this with my buddy this morning during a walk on the beach with his German Shepard (which is a weapon by himself). We both came to agree that, though like you say the rift between US and Europe is still vast, the idea of self-defense is one of the several aspects of the comeback of the right in Italy. Since 1994 Italy, which had had virtually no conservative parties since the 20's, is witnessing a huge and strong backlash and the idea of a smaller State, of a State that is there to serve the citizens and can't ask the more than what is just is making itself known and popular. More and more as the years pass and elections keep confirming it. Before it would have simply been a taboo talking about owning guns for self-defense. Today it is no more. Even on a philosophical point of view. Yes, true, we're still very far from accepting it as part of our shared Constitutional heritage, but you see, a country's direction is never given once and for all. Peoples change their mind. Do not forget that the left was virtually unrivalled in the US as late as the 70's, when Goldwater and the Reagan started to make the difference. Many things are changing.

We recently had a situation in Northern Virginia where a mentally unbalanced 18year old with a criminal record escaped from a mental health facility and carjacked a vehicle. He later turned himself in and was released on bond. A couple weeks later he returned to the local police station with a hunting rifle, and AK47-like assault rifle and five handguns. He ambushed police officers in the parking lot during shift change, killing a detective and critically wounding two others before being taken down.

When police searched his home, that he shared with his parents and sister, they found an additional dozen weapons (shotguns, rifles, pistols and knives) in open sight around the house. There was no statement as to whether the guns were registered or licensed.

My first thought was the dollar value of the weapons. He was carrying around 5K worth of weapons with another 5-7K at home. Now even if the weapons were owned by the family, who would keep that kind of hardware in the same home with a mentally unbalance teenager with a criminal record?

Look, I own guns. My wife and children know how to safely use them although they haven't been fired in several years. I live a mile away from NRA headquarters and shoot at their range. At best a gun is a tool that can be used or abused. But there has to be middle ground that permits ownership but protects the community from this kind of nightmare scenario.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Those days went goodbye with mandatory sentences and the three strikes rule as far as I can tell. My cousin was convicted at the age of 12 as the "youngest hitman in the state of California" according to the Oakland Tribune of the day. He was caught when he had a change of heart and brought his victim to the emergency room after beating him half to death with a 2X4 for $1000. The cops asked him what happened and he came clean expecting to receive a lenient sentence in exchange for cooperating. He'd seen too much tv.

He received the maximum sentence owing to the public outrage of the brutallity of it all and rightly so. But to my cousin he felt betrayed and figured he would have gotten the same sentence anyway so... he never made that mistake again. He is the only man I am truly scared of being in the same room with and wouldn't do it without a gun even though he is family and tells me he really "likes" me. And there are thousands like him who would not lose a wink of sleep over killing you and your family simply "because" so if a criminal breaks into your house how do you know if it is someone like him or some "gentleman"? You don't and in my judgement you err on the side of assuming the worst and protecting your family.

You shoot, and you shoot to kill without warning.

But nowadays burglars are suing for injurys, and winning...That pisses me off.

Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

But nowadays burglars are suing for injurys, and winning...That pisses me off.

What kind of piss ant weapon are you using? Leave a hole in him a semi could drive through.

12 Gauge Shotgun. No survivors.

Then the family sues...Or you get manslaughter...

that's the fault of the courts- you enter my house with intent to harm, let me put it this way:

If it starts out as a civil disagreement, I will use anything in reach to break the first appendage that touches me. It does not matter that I weigh fifty pounds less than you, I will bludgeon you with a tire iron if need be. Do not trifle with me when you tread upon my own property. To me, anything that can be used as protection in a violent situation falls under the second amendment. That's probably a little right wing even for this forum. I am protected by my right to self defense. This is assuming that this happens on my property.

If it's a hostile engagement, then this confrontation is fixing to go terribly wrong for you.

When the lives of their friends or family are on the line, most normal men will not care about pending legal damages at the time things go wrong. Gun control is having a good sight picture. This would, sensibly, also fall under self defense granted it was in defense of my property and life.

The problem is that anyone sues over any little thing these days, and these frivolous cases end up clogging the courts. Hell, we almost lost Tim McVeigh because of incompetency of the courts.