A better word would be detained. You would be detained after shooting somebody within your own home. They will not sit down with you in your living room and casually ask you how your day was over a cup of coffee. They will take you down to the station and get your side of the story from you. If they feel it was in self defense, you will go home. Even the girl who was recently in the news for shooting a man with a shotgun in her trailer was detained but she was quickly released as the officers had more than enough evidence proving self defense, namely the fact that she was on the phone with dispatch when it happened.
They may also pick you up later should evidence suggest something otherwise. One such case that I remember clearly was a man who attacked my tattoo artist in his shop forcing the artist to shoot the man. Ballistic analysis of the wound in the chest showed that the man's arm was raised above his head which was true as he was in the process of swinging a baseball bat one handed. This helped collaborate with the artists story. Had the man's arm's been down in a surrender pose then the artist could very well be in trouble for shooting a man who had already surrendered.
And should the perp live then you will have a summons to appear in court as you are a key witness in the crime. Failure to appear may result in a warrant for your arrest and could possibly result in the charges being dropped or reduced.
Astenion is quite correct but it's his terminology that is mucking up the point he is trying to make.

Killing someone because they committed a crime against your property = murder.

Shooting someone through the door when you could just wait for the police to arrive = murder.

Openly bragging about how you would murder people without any regrets = sociopath.

By the way I carried a handgun for 7 years when I lived in Florida and was threatened twice and attacked once and still didn't shoot anybody. I have a hard time feeling threatened.

Meanwhile, you are still wrong.

A better word would be detained. You would be detained after shooting somebody within your own home. They will not sit down with you in your living room and casually ask you how your day was over a cup of coffee. They will take you down to the station and get your side of the story from you. If they feel it was in self defense, you will go home. Even the girl who was recently in the news for shooting a man with a shotgun in her trailer was detained but she was quickly released as the officers had more than enough evidence proving self defense, namely the fact that she was on the phone with dispatch when it happened.
They may also pick you up later should evidence suggest something otherwise. One such case that I remember clearly was a man who attacked my tattoo artist in his shop forcing the artist to shoot the man. Ballistic analysis of the wound in the chest showed that the man's arm was raised above his head which was true as he was in the process of swinging a baseball bat one handed. This helped collaborate with the artists story. Had the man's arm's been down in a surrender pose then the artist could very well be in trouble for shooting a man who had already surrendered.
And should the perp live then you will have a summons to appear in court as you are a key witness in the crime. Failure to appear may result in a warrant for your arrest and could possibly result in the charges being dropped or reduced.
Astenion is quite correct but it's his terminology that is mucking up the point he is trying to make.

The terminology causes mix ups in the UK too, violent self defence is perfectly legal here as long as the violence is proportional. But anyone who seriously hurts or kills someone in self defence will be arrested, people often mistake that for self defence being illegal but that's not true.

They are arrested because they have to give evidence/make a statement under caution and have the interview recorded, its a legal requirement. If the level of force used is appropriate they are not charged with anything.

Yeah, exactly. That's kinda my point. There is a difference between legality and covering something up. Just because you don't go to prison for it doesn't mean it's legal. Riedle has obviously never had to deal with firearms and their laws in the US, and especially in the south.

Saying, "But, but, but, but there are PLENTY of people who have never gotten into trouble for killing others in the US, so you can't be held responsible in any case of self-defense lolz!!!!!" is pure, unadulterated idiocy.

That very case in Florida is calling into question the Castle Doctrine and its applicability.

Here's a perfect example:

My cousin was filling his vehicle up at a service station about 1 am one morning on his way home. A man asked him if he could get a lift since he was going in the same direction as my cousin. My cousin said, "Sorry man, I don't know you and I'm not about to let you into my vehicle." The man continued asking and bothering him, and even started berating him. He repeated that, once again, he didn't know him so didn't feel comfortable letting him into his vehicle. He then went inside, paid for his gas, and got back in his car. As he was pulling out of the service station, the man ran up to his window, which was down, and grabbed him and shouted, "LET ME INTO YOUR CAR!!!". My cousin pulled out his .44 magnum under the seat, pointed it at the man square in the chest and told him that if he didn't leave him alone, he would be forced to shoot him. The man saw the pistol and immediately apologized and ran away. Had my cousin shot him, he would've been found guilty of either manslaughter or murder because although the man had attacked him, when he pulled out his pistol, the situation was immediately defused. He could've claimed self-defense due to being attacked but it wouldn't have held up. You have to be able to prove that your life was in danger AFTER giving a warning to the intruder, and that's very difficult to prove.

Not only that, had the man gone to the police, my cousin would probably have been arrested for having a concealed weapon due to his not having a permit for said weapon. Even in cases of self-defense, you still can't carry a weapon around with you or in your vehicle unless you have a concealed weapon permit. However, in the south, it's rather common people have weapons in their vehicles even if it's illegal. This also reinforces my statement that just because you may not get into trouble with having firearms, that doesn't mean they're legal to carry or use without a permit, even in cases of self-defense. Even if he had been cleared in self-defense, he still would've been brought up on charges for carrying a concealed weapon. This is also why I believe firearm laws are much too lax in the US and need a complete overhaul....it's simply too easy to obtain one, legally or illegally. The real culprit, however, is the social nature and attitude towards firearms in the US. People don't necessarily want to bear arms, many of them just want to be able to shoot people legally and this is their hypocrisy of their constant bringing up of the second amendment.

When I was growing up in New York, where you need to have a $300 permit just to own a pistol and you can forget about carrying it unless you are a politician, cop, or celebrity (but they have a lot of "gun crime" - go figure), every cop I knew all said the same thing:
"If you have to shoot somebody in your yard, drag them into the house. We'll ingnore the blood trail if the creep you shot had a long rap sheet. "

Whenever I argue with the pro-abortionists, I always hear "we need Roe v Wade because...because (lip quivering as talking point to be spewed) some young girl who gets an abortion in one state can get arrested in anohter when she crosses the state line!!!1!!!"

And I tell them "gee, we have a specific Amendment about guns, yet what you describe is exactly what happens to gun owners, and there is no abortion amendment in the bill of rights.

[quote=Kattshiro]
I was under the impression most Euros/brits loved the fact that less manufactured weapons were not floating around.

which explains the increase in cricket and baseball bat sales...Also might explain why bludgeoning is on the rise as well...LETS SEE IF IT CAN OVER TAKE BEATINGS FOR SECOND!! Sharp pointy things are still number 1 though... [/quote

Some of us aren't happy at all.

When you realise that the police aren't capable of protecting you from scumbags who would do you harm, you want to be able to do the job yourself. If the police can't (or won't) perform the role that they keep telling us they are there for, then the responsibility for your own defence rests with you.

I don't like the idea of knives; I know **** all about how to use one and as has often been remarked, a weapon you don't know how to use belongs to your enemy. Admittedly I know little about guns (and the last time I fired live ammunition was from an SLR when I was Air Cadets back in the 80's) but I'm sure it'd be a damn sight easier to take a course in how to handle a firearm than it would to level up to ninja on blade skills.

The scumbags know how overstretched the rozzers are and have realised that the laws don't have to apply to them if they don't want them to and that they have more or less free license to do as they please to whomever they want with little chance of any negative consequences.

I also don't subscribe to the "it'll precipitate an arms race" argument. On the many many occasions I've been assaulted, or become embroiled in a physical conflict, over the years I've never yet seen any of the scumbags do less than their level best to seriously hurt their target. There is something seriously wrong when the only people with the means to defend themselves from physically stonger aggressors are the ones causing the grief in the first place.

When you live in an area where the popular idea of what constitutes fun is multiple guys kicking another chap around the floor after he passes out just because they can, you'd like it not to be you that they play football with. I'd jump at the chance to own a large calibre handgun, not because I want to hurt anyone, but because I don't want to see anyone who doesn't deserve it (mostly me I'll admit) hurt.

Wow. Are you really this stupid, or are you just trolling?

Good to know you're an anti-abortion moron as well. What happened to that whole small government thing? You know, the part where the government stays out of your business when you aren't harming anyone else?



(Hint for the clueless: "gun laws suck" is complete nonsense as a reply to "abortion laws suck". It's possible to be in favor of both abortion and gun ownership, since, you know, the two sets of laws have absolutely nothing to do with each other.)

Wow. Are you really this stupid, or are you just trolling?

Good to know you're an anti-abortion moron as well. What happened to that whole small government thing? You know, the part where the government stays out of your business when you aren't harming anyone else?



(Hint for the clueless: "gun laws suck" is complete nonsense as a reply to "abortion laws suck". It's possible to be in favor of both abortion and gun ownership, since, you know, the two sets of laws have absolutely nothing to do with each other.)

Sorry abortion is the right of the woman carrying the blob of cells until they are viable.

Sadly stupid people bring religion into something as personal as this.

Great point, Herz. This is exactly what I'm talking about in the south. Almost word for word, you just detailed the very same thing explained to me in private conversations with police officers.

The law is a fluid, viscous thing that is a lot like trying to hammer snot to a wall. Sometimes it's good to be able to bend the law, other times it may work against you. How a law is enforced has a much bigger impact than the law itself. Just like in self-defense shootings, it depends on a multitude of things...however, it's still illegal to shoot people no matter who they are. Whether or not you get into trouble for your actions is up to the enforcers of the law. However, that doesn't change the fact of whether or not it's a law.

A small government would not let a SCOTUS decision become law by fiat.

So both sides think they can put on the One Ring and do good with it.

The same thing goes for the so-called "gay marriage" issue.

I enjoy trolling you, but a part of me hopes there is a civill war so I can get a chance to not be in the same country you are in.

Correction: your ideal small government would never have allowed religious doctrine (with no factual support at all) to become law in the first place, therefore there would have been no need to challenge the non-existent laws against abortion. The supreme court decision is 100% in line with small-government ideology, and you should be praising the fact that it became law as a perfect example of how to reduce the power of government.

The fact that you can find anything to object to in this case suggests that, like most "small government" advocates, you're really concerned with your own personal agenda, not an actual minimization of government power.



One side wants to ban unjustified laws restricting individual freedom, and appeals to higher levels of government to stop those laws (since that whole "tyranny of the majority" thing keeps them from doing it at lower levels).

One side wants to pass laws that enforce religious doctrine and restrict individual freedom.

See a difference here?



Err, how?

One side wants to have all marriages recognized (legally) the same way.

One side wants to use the power of the state to take away the rights of a group that the majority dislikes, including using the power of the federal government to pass laws banning local or state governments from restoring those rights.

How the **** are these two groups equal?


PS: it's not a "so-called" issue if you're one of the people who has to sit and watch while the government spends your tax money to tell you how much Jesus hates you.




I don't know which is more delusional, that you want a civil war, or that you actually think you'd be on the winning side of it. Unfortunately for you, the side with the modern weapons* tends to win, and the moral high ground isn't very comforting when a stealth bomber just wiped your town off the map.


*That would be the government, in case you were wondering.

Oh jeez one of those. I am not going to bother with you except to remind you that all the money it takes for all those special weapons comes from people like me, so when it's time to kill me, they have to print more money to keep that war machine going. And you can feel good about yourself watching a gallon of gas cost fifty bucks. You are a perfect example of what happens when government schools stop teaching civics.

You got me categorized. You probably think I am with the Tea Party when I post links about how co-opted it is. You probably think I listen to Rush and the other sock puppets. You have no idea who I am and what I do, but it does not matter. I am hated by liberals and conservatives alike, and I am proud of that.

Not only am I not going to change, for you I promise to try harder in doing what I do. Thanks for the motivation. I want you and people like you to suffer only for the fact that I keep breathing, and creating more people like me by waking them up.

1) Since when has a tiny little detail like "we don't have money for this" ever stopped the government from doing anything? You of all people should be very familiar with the fact that the government has been spending more money than it takes in for as long as I can remember. Running up a bit more debt to pay for a war (just like every other war lately) would just be business as usual.

2) Existing stocks of weapons are more than enough to end any attempted rebellion by people like you. After all, it's not like you need expensive stand-off cruise missiles to bomb an enemy that doesn't have any anti-aircraft defenses. Or expensive gps-guided bombs to precisely kill the target without massive collateral damage*. All it takes is a few B-52s/artillery guns/etc firing nice simple "dumb" weapons to carpet bomb you until you surrender.

3) Congratulations on missing the point that I don't want this to happen. I'm just not delusional enough to think that an attempt at armed revolution is going to be anything other than a one-sided massacre. Unlike you, I actually understand just how horrifyingly effective modern weapons are.

While I do in general agree with your viewpoint, your first point here makes me wonder how old you are. Under the Clinton administration, we did have a surplus for a while...

OP has the right idea

Anyone that willfully invades a home is, in my opinion, fair game. If someone breaks into mine, I will not hesitate to give them a real reason to not try it again.

This x inifinty.

I have a young daughter, woe betide anyone breaking into my home when she is present (which is most of the time!).

I'll happily panel beat your face into the ground, and then claim self defense on the basis that you wouldn't stay down whilst under Citizens Arrest.

**** the law and **** the consequences. You don't mess around when your kids are at risk.

This x inifinty.

I have a young daughter, woe betide anyone breaking into my home when she is present (which is most of the time!).

I'll happily panel beat your face into the ground, and then claim self defense on the basis that you wouldn't stay down whilst under Citizens Arrest.

**** the law and **** the consequences. You don't mess around when your kids are at risk.

how in the hell did this discussion turn to abortion. Seriously....

I've been here for two years and Herz never ceases to amaze me. I've vehemently disagreed with him as well as vehemently agreeing with him, but the bottom line is that he comes out with some really deep, interesting, zany, and sometimes plain wacko stuff. Sometimes it leans too far to the tinfoil hatted direction, but I still enjoy it. A little less Alex Jones and a little more Bill Maher would be nice, but it's all good mang.

Please continue. *popcorn*