Debate: - Gun Laws and Self Defence

[Blah11]

I don't think you should be allowed to shoot or stab someone with the intent of killing them but idk, i think you should be able to hit them or something instead.

 

[Nic1107]

I don't think you should be allowed to shoot or stab someone with the intent of killing them but idk, i think you should be able to hit them or something instead.

That sounds good in theory, but the probability of someone- especially if they're drunk/high and can't feel the hit as strongly- just shaking it off and retaliating is too high IMO. That's why I'm getting a tazer. Ideally a defender would shoot for the knees rather than to kill, but sometimes if it comes down to it you've gotta do what you've gotta do!

 

[jenny_wren]

i think you should have the right to defend your home
and your life if they are threatened ...

obviously you cant just shoot or stab someone but if in
self defence then yes you should be allowed to
fight back you shouldn't be allowed to harm someone
unless your life or your family's is in danger

at the end of the day if someone broke into my home
yes i would find something to smack them with in hopes
they'd buggered off before anyone got hurt or anything
got nicked, that being said if they were armed i wouldn't
need to think twice about stabbing them i'd rather they
were injured instead of my daughter!

i do think it should be done on a case to case basic
someone shooting a burgular once they've gone out
the front door shouldn't be allowed, however if someone
shot or stabbed someone because they threatened a
family member or something then yes it should be acceptable
to defend yourself, it does depend on the circumstances

xxx​

 

[Hayley90]

When my mum was in refuge they told her about legal mace they had found online...about £5 a pot, but not called mace...called something else. I might find out the name, as its not illegal, and the police couldnt do anything to you for using it... within reason of course.

 

[buttonnose82]

for those of you that say you would do whatever because they shouldn't be in your house ...... where would you draw the line between self defence and a lack of self control/angry?

 

[Hayley90]

for those of you that say you would do whatever because they shouldn't be in your house ...... where would you draw the line between self defence and a lack of self control/angry?

enough to get them off/away from me/my child/whoever

so if waving a knife is enough for them to run away, thats it.
if i have to punch someone, then they back off, thats it.

if they keep coming at me, something heavy to stop them in their tracks.

i dont agree with firearms being used, and i would HATE to have to use a knife on someone.

Whatever it took to get them to stop/get out/get off - when they stop, i stop.

But its easy to say that now i suppose... if a guy was here now id cry and freak out. x

eta - i agree there is a fine line between reasonable force & anger - what worries me is im the one who would just be upset & scared - i dont get angry. Liam has red mist. In a way, id prefer to deal with it myself, as i can restrain myself, whereas liam cannot and would get into trouble.

 

[Nic1107]

I draw the line at continuing to beat on someone who has already been incapacitated, or shooting someone who is retreating. If the threat was such that I or my husband had to kill to protect our family, one last resort bullet/stab would hopefully do it and it would be up to the judge and jury to decide if lethal force was warranted. Fortunately the law here is likely to be on the side of the victim; unfortunately that has been mis-used particularly in cases of police brutality but that's a whole different debate.

 

[Elli21]

for those of you that say you would do whatever because they shouldn't be in your house ...... where would you draw the line between self defence and a lack of self control/angry?

I would draw the lind where they do.
If they see me with a bat, and take my verbal warning and leave then thats done.
If they charge at me, ill whack them!
And if they get very very violent or go anywhere near my children id go further.

 

[ALY]

i agree with ellie21

i wouldnt want to stab anyone (even tho i have karl and my ex )
if they didnt charge at me id just pick something up and threaten them if however they came near me i would use the force i think is ok to use
and if that means hitting them with something or letting my dog loses thats what i would do

 

[tasha41]

You should be able to defend yourself, home, and family with appropriate force.

Personally though, fuck the law, if you're in my home endangering my kids and I don't know if you're armed or not, I'm not taking chances... there is no good reason for you being in my house without my permission, whether you're going to rob us, hurt us, or take one of us... I wouldn't risk my life (safety or jailtime) for "stuff" but for my family... whatever it takes!

But I would be livid if someone beat my 14 year old to a pulp for breaking into their home to steal say a television... and IMO you are in the wrong and should be charged for that.

 

[Jo]

for those of you that say you would do whatever because they shouldn't be in your house ...... where would you draw the line between self defence and a lack of self control/angry?

The lines would be extremely blurred, but TBH I would be defending me, my family and my belongings because I would be angry the someone had the bare faced cheek to even attempt to get in to my house.
I don't think I would continue after they had been disarmed or were running but someone who gets in my house would have a huge battle on thier hands.

 

[sparkle_1979]

I would ask them to leave and then if they didn't I would use any means possible to get them out of my house and protect my baby x

 

[morri]

I am only for defensive mechanism. Nothing that is supposed to be attacking(like a gun or rifle) I don't have a porblem with people having it in their house well locked as the law says but I think it should be only used as sports devices.

 

[blahblahblah]

As far as I'm concerned, once someone has broken into my home they deserve whatever they get! I wouldn't go after someone if they left, and I wouldn't do anything further if they were incapacitated. But apart from that, anything goes.

If they don't want to be seriously injured or worse, they shouldn't break into someones home.

 

[Chaos]

wtf? "Sorry madam, we appreciate you've just had an attempted break in and they've gone, but would you mind waiting despite the fact they might come back with others because they are pissed off at you, and when they do, just offer them a drink and wait for us to turn up, because you know, being short staffed trumps your safety"

I can take care of myself (used to work in mental health and then at a prison) but they don't know that. All they knew is that I was a young woman alone in a flat late at night with a couple of guys trying to break in so I did think it was more that a bit crap they didn't come out. Also one of my neighbour's flats got broken in that evening (I am not sure if it was before or after mine, they were out) and that possibly could have been avoided if they had actually bothered to come out.

I have a pretty big labrador and i honestly think that if someone came into our house in the middle of the nigth he would just lick them

My mum's neighbour's had a rottweiler who would have loved it if someone broke in, he liked making new friends and would have been jumping up and licking them and generally just have been really pleased. He was so cute

max is a rottweiler cross german shep and he is a big softie thro the day but at night he is always listening and barking if he hears a noise and he isnt playing he is been nasty and aggressive

Hmm I wonder if the same rules still apply to dogs attacking people on your property, breaking in or friendly? I mean if a dog bites, would it be ordered destroyed as a dangerous animal, or would it be ok as it was defending the home?

 

[MrHenry]

In Oklahoma, USA the castle law (mentioned previously) is in effect. Someone enters your property unlawfully you can use force to protect yourself, however unlike what was mentioned earlier the law says that you do not have to try to escape YOUR PROPERTY, it is yours and you have a right to defend it in any way possible. That is the point of the castle law, not so that you can attack someone in your home. Before Castle Law you were required to first try and escape and leave the person to steal, or harm whoever or whatever is left in your home.

My opinion on this subject is that I shouldn't be charged for protecting my home and my FAMILY! I own three different guns, 1 12 ga Shotgun, 1 .22 rifle, and 1 9mm handgun, the shotgun and rifle are in the closet on my wife's side of the bed I keep the handgun on my side loaded and within reach, (an unloaded gun is like a car without gas...useless) I also have a baseball bat next to the bed. I will kill anyone entering my home illegally because I don't care what the intent was when they entered, it was illegal and is subject to change at any moment. (how many people do you know who don't mind going to jail for a crime?)

P.S. I have given my wife instructions on use of guns and how to handle them, and I told her things are much simpler (and immensely more convenient) if there is only one version of events should some one break in, and to make sure it's her's!

These defense type debates are VERY good! I'm very happy someone had the guts to bring it up!


EDT: That is not to say you are allowed to chase them after they leave, or shoot them in the back!

 

[Blah11]

What will you do with your loaded gun when your kid is born? Hopefully lock it away.. Too many sad stories about siblings shooting one another or a kid shooting themself.

 

[Drazic<3]

I think you should be able to protect yourself and your family in your own home. Where I think it's wrong was the case recently where they chased the person out and kicked the crap out of them when they had run away. Do I understand that? Yeah, but it's not defending your home anymore, you become the attacker.

 

[MrHenry]

I won't lock it, that makes it just as useless (at least not the handgun, the other 2 I will) I will however make it just as inaccessible. I will also TEACH my children about guns, not to fear the gun, but the use of guns, they will understand how they work and what kind of terrible things can happen with them.

A comedian said once "the best way to teach a kid about gun safety is to give them a rabbit, let them keep the rabbit for several weeks, they have to feed, take care of, and live with this rabbit, then take the rabbit and the child outside and shoot the rabbit and make the child watch...they'll never play with a gun again."

Now I disagree with that...that's pretty extreme, but the principal of teaching is the same, if you give your child information, teach them good morals and discipline then you will have fewer problems. How many kids here in America go hunting with their parents and don't shoot someone?

 

[Drazic<3]

^
That's all well and good when they are old enough to understand, but what about before? Wasn't there a little girl recently who shot herself in the abdomen and died because she found a gun in her home (not locked away or out of her reach) and she thought it was a wii remote. So sad.