- Oct 13, 2006
- Reaction score
I appreciate the additional background; however, in my mind that only furthers the fact that it's the individual, NOT the gun that is dangerous. If this fella' didn't have a shotgun I'm sure he'd find something else to bash them over the head with, throw or hurl at them, stab them with, etc, etc....
There are some things relevent to this and similar occurances that should be the focus of the debate IMHO.
1. Personal Responsibility
2. Right to Protect What is Yours
- There's very few people that don't know that its' NOT okay to break into another persons house.
- Freely making the decision to break into a home (for whatever reason, none of which are honorable) means freely accepting the consequences of that decision.
- Breaking into someone's home means risking getting caught, which means risking being shot where guns are legal or suffering other bodily harm.
For those that would argue that it's not worth killing someone over, yadda-yadda....refer to point #1 in particular. "Freedom" means being free to make your own decision, which also means being free to suffer the consequences of those decisions. Everyone knows B&E is illegal and wrong so deciding to participate in it means accepting the risk. I personally don't agree with suicide either, but I won't stand in the way of someone's right to do it.... which is pretty much the same thing as breaking into my house. LOL
- I like my stuff. You like your stuff. We both work hard for our stuff. It would be hard to replace a lot of stuff. A thief has no right to my stuff. If you want to give them your stuff....groovy, but I ain't giving mine away and I feel I have a right to protect it and so do a lot of other folks.
- Some things can't be replaced, like family heirlooms for instance. The police don't sit on my front porch 24/7 so the only thing I can expect them to do is file a report and hope it just happens to show up in a pawn shop. I think my chance of retrieving my items from a wounded crook that just tried to climb out my window are a little better.
Don't want to die? Don't play Russian Roulette. Don't run across busy 4 lane highways. Don't fish toast out of the toaster with a metal fork. Don't shower with your hairdryer. Don't tug on Superman's cape. And don't break into my house.
...it should be a matter of common sense but our legal systems are superb at flushing common sense down the toilet.
I'm not saying what you say isn't true but what we are getting at is that the Tony Martin case isn't the one to prove that we should be armed is it?
That's what the OP was trying to prove, that because Tony Martin shot someone who was breaking into his house we should all be armed and he was prosecuted for defending himself. If we are to be convinced it has to be by a better case than this one.
In this country we can defend ourselves and our property, it has to be reasonable though, you can't go round the countryside daring gypsies to break into your house just so you can sit in wait for them and shoot them. If you wake up and find someone in your house, you go down stairs and feel in danger of your life which is very likely because someone is there so you shoot them, thats fine, it's self defence and provided you do the right things after (and frankly leaving someone to bleed to death on your carpet isn't the best way to endear yourself to the law or your wife) you will not be charged. You may even receive some money from the criminal compensation board.
Here is the statement by the Crown Proscecution Service, ( like your DAs)