March 21, 2006
-
Self-Defense
I am still taking friends for those who are using the new xanga feature. If you need to know how to use it, look 3 post before this one.
I was reading in the USA TODAY newspaper and they had an interesting article about self-defense. The NRA (National Rifle Association) is pushing for states to change their laws concerning self-defense. Apparently many states are adopting those laws or currently considering them.
The old laws gave immunity from prosecution anyone who killed someone in defense of their home. For example, if a criminal went into your house and you killed them you were generally given immunity from prosecution to protect yourself. You were authorized to use deadly force to defend yourself.
The new law would expand self-defense to include crimes committed in public. The current laws in most states allow you to kill someone if your life is in danger. If someone killed another person, they could be prosecuted if they couldn’t prove a danger was presented. According to the article, the idea was that a person could only use deadly force to defend their life. They also put forth that there was a “duty to retreat” which required a person to “avoid potentially deadly confrontations.”
Now the same principle that applies to a person in their own home would apply to a person in public.
Should a person have the same right to kill in public that they have in the privacy of their own home?
Comments (134)
1
2
Hey, if someone is trying to harm me, then they deserve whats coming to them…
yes, people should be allowed to kill, so long as they’re killing someone who is definitely dangerous.
Well the public one could be very twisted, however, if it was public I would hope there would be witnesses to back up the self-defense statement.
Yea, I think they should have the right to protect themselves.
I think every case is different. I just depends on what EXACTLY is happening. Besides, people are less likely to attack you in public. Or…so I believe.
Hmm… that is a bit of a tough question to answer.
In many respects, it should not be allowed. Still, when your own life is in danger…
Bleh. -_-;; You’re making me think. >_<
~Darcy~
top 10?
i think the situation depends
Honestly, do we have to kill a person if they’re attacking us?
I think a bullet to the leg or arm would be substantial enough.
Yes, if it’s a matter of protection then absolutel.
-Jared
hell yeahh…push me and ill punch you, punch me and your dead.
If you can’t disable someone and they want ot kill you… well it’s a sensible law anyway.
Now does it line up with Jesus’ attitude?
Definitely, if someone is trying to inflict bodily harm to you, you have a right to defend yourself.
Very interesting. Had not heard about this. I imagine that it only makes sense that this would follow the new laws considering concealed weapons. I would think that, given no other option than to retaliat against an assailant, killing in necessary self-defense would be considered a constitutional right in a way… the right to live. I would much rather aim to decapacitate than kill though, if at all possible.
Definately. The right to self defense is fundamental. Isnt it necessary for society to exist?
I think so, if their life is still threatened.
But it’s interesting: in public you’d be much more likely to hurt other people who weren’t trying to kill you on accident.
I think any killing should be done in the closet
I don’t know. They should have a right to protect themselves, but I can see people making it out of control. I’m going to protect myself whether I’m at home or in public. I would never try to kill someone, but if I did…..I’m just not sure, to be honest.
well everyone has the right to defend themselves but killing isn’t isn’t nessasary unless its the only way out.. sure you my be getting attacked but can you bear to live with killing someone.. i just don’t know the right answer…
yep, if their life is in danger and they’re being attacked.
I am too tired to figure out a new xanga thing that I am just now hearing about, give me a few days ( after NY< ) and maybe you can help me.
If it’s self-defense and that much use of force in truly necessary – yes. I can see this bogging down the court system even more that it already is, though.
My uncle is in martial arts, karate, that kinda thing. He has been doing it since he was a teenager and is in his late 30s now. He told me once that the self defence he has been taught is that martial arts are never used to offensively kill anyone. They are used for defence – to protect oneself by inhibiting the person(s) to commit what he/she is trying to do. There is a huge stress though, that this does not mean killing them. Even if someone is trying to take away your right to live, they have a right to live as well, no matter how foul of a person they are. And if we, in turn, defend ourselves by doing what they are trying to do to us, how does that make us any better?
Now I understand the average American is not trained in martial arts and therefore has much less of a chance to inflict damage that will prevent murder than my uncle does, but I think the concept is something to consider, and there is honour in it.
I am afraid that such a law will give licence to unnecessary killings. I’m afraid that people will feel it’s their right and duty to murder someone just because it’s now ALLOWED. We need to be so careful, because in that moment, when anger, fear, panic, and rage are overtaking our actions, a lot of us would go right ahead and do our worst if we knew it was legal.
But I dunno.. it’s hard to say. Maybe the law will prevent more from attacking in the first place. We never know.
If I feel that I am in danger of my life I would do anything it took to protect myself. Given as my husband is a law enforcement officer I am constantly updated to what is the letter of the law. LOL Inadvertantly we in our human nature don’t always react to situations as we should. If attacked know how to escape such. If you are mugged, give it up, don’t fight for what is yours. Attune yourself to key things that would help identify someone who intends to do you harm in one form or another. Desguises are possible but traits can’t be hidden. How does they walk, how do they speak, what is visible, how tall/short, how fat/skinny, visable tattoo’s. My husband wants to get a shotgun in the house for my protection as well our protection. He has had threats as do many officers. Some he takes seriously and others he doesn’t. I have a 5′ great sword that if someone breaks into my house I can easily get it as well know it will do damage if it is required. Okay, I’ve rambled on more then I perhaps should have. Thanks for having such thought provoking posts.
i think it’s too risky
I have to admit, I’m rather surprised by the number that seem to lean the same direction! It’s refreshing!
top 50?
they shouldn’t have the right to kill in their own home to begin with
Yes. Either way, harm is coming to them. They should be able to defend themselves.
no on shoul dhave the right to kill, dan. This one is a NO brainer, Dan!
*spank*
if your life is at stake, i guess its only proper to defend yourself..
that’s messed up, but i think so
The right to kill someone in self defense is a generally accepted moral action but should we kill in these situations? Is protection such as pepper spray or mace a viable option? If the question assumes that killing the offender is the only option then yes, the offended has the right to defend with lethal force. However, where is the point between self-defense and poor judgment that the taking of one’s life is an acceptable action? The context/circumstance must demand that without question the life was taken justly whether public or private. If not, there would be many senseless murders in the name of “self-defense”
It’s such a touchy issue though..because this poor old hoboey looking guy could come up to some person to ask for directions, but since he looks bad they freak out and are all “Ahhh! Me life! It’s in danger!” Then what do you have? Dead hobo. Stupid person. No jail time.
At least if it’s in your home you can be assured that there is a threat.
On the street it’s so subjective…
I mean next thing you know gang members are going to be getting off for that. One guy kills another because he’s in a different gang, but when he’s confronted..obviously his life was threatened simply because he was in the presense of someone from a rival gang.
It gets twisted so easily…
TearsKeepAFalling has a good point with the gang thing. Not sure how they would resolve that.
I’m not really sure what I think about this one. For once. Haha.
If by public you mean where other people are around, I don’t think such force should be used in public. Chances are, there may be others to help defend you or you will be able to draw attention to yourself more easily. In your own home though, the use of deadly force is a bit more urgent since you might live alone in a secluded place.
Just thinking about this law makes my head hurt. The possibilities for abuse are so high… I’m not sure if it would protect the public good as much as allowing more bloodbaths on the streets.
Anyways, even if there is justification for passing this law, the chances of me visiting the States would drop to an all-time low…
People should have the right to protect themselves and their family who are unable to protect themselves (children and elderly) no matter where they are at.
Maybe you could invite them back to your place and shoot them there?
I dunno. It’s complicated. Anyway, I’m all for avoiding ‘potentially deadly situations’. But what’s that about Americans having the ‘duty to retreat’? Why not just call it the ‘duty to get shot in the back’?
We should all wear full body armor. That would solve everything.
Meaning like if a person is mugging you you’re allowed to kill them? I’m not quite sure what cases that would apply to. If someone is in your home then I can see needing to defend yourself (it’s harder to get out and get help, they’re breaking into your private property, etc).
But in public… what does that mean? It seems any threat that’s out in public that would warrant you using possibly deadly force is one where you could show that you felt personally threatened and that your life could’ve been in danger. I guess I’d need to know more about the.limits of each version of these laws.
HEY EVERYONE CHECK THIS OUT!!!! IT’S A NEW XANGA WHERE YOU DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT!!!!! http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Your_variety_show
Ryan and Daniel
No, gun-wielders do not automatically become defenders of life and justice or something ridiculous like that.
In fact, I’m sure if that law was passed, it would be a lot harder to prosecute gang members and other people who probably didn’t use their firearms responsibly. They also probably didn’t uphold the duty to retreat but did the opposite and caused confrontations.
If people pass this this law, people are going to fight to the death. Tight!
Well in homes, you’re allowed to kill anyone that enters, even if you’re not sure of the threat, because you will never know for sure. If some man just broke through your window, you can just stand in front of your room with a gun and shoot him and not be prosecuted. In public
it shouldn’t be the exact same. But… if the person’s life is in danger. There should be to right to defend your life against the person, no matter the consequences.
http://www.meebo.com, i think you can use all three IMing services at once
The difficulty is that it’s hard to back up your situation when you’re in public. There’s always going to be that random chance that some eyewitness will misunderstand what was going on and accuse you of being a murderer. The whole thing could turn around against you.
In terms of your question, I can’t say that I have a definite answer. I’ll get back to you later. ^^;;
When you are in your own home..you belong there and no one else unless you permit them access. Pretty cut and dry…your territory that belongs to you and you have the right to defend it to include deadly force. You belonged there and they did not. Out in public is another matter, since every space belongs to everybody with no one having more right to it than someone else. You and your belongings are what is available to defend but you still have to determine what constitutes a danger. That is so open to interpretation that it is scary. There are a lot of people who are afraid of other people for a variety of reasons….some of which are not based on reality. So my answer is NO……..there is a difference between a crime in public versus a crime within a home.
50th!
heck yes,
“it was self defense sherriff”
and i’d do it without the law,
i’d rather be alive and prosecuted
than dead and legal
yes. it’s still the same thing being committed against them. why should the attacker have an advantage just because it’s not on the vic’s property? they’re the bad guy! they don’t deserve a home field advantage.
i profess my right to defend myself in or out of public with deadly force …
when my father was in the police reserves, they taught the wives how to shoot pistols. they had a small class and the officer that was teaching it said that if someone was trying to get into the house, to shoot him on the spot and “drag his ass in the house” as the law was that anyone “inside the house.”
So, in essence, in Whichita, if people do follow what that officer said, it doesn’t matter.
yes
Yes.
In the UK if you kill a burgular or anyone that is on your property you go to prison for it
I hope you can read this URL. Here is a story of how stupid our government/system/powers that be can be!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml;jsessionid=A32X5MU3ENOLPQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?html=/archive/2000/04/20/nmar20.html
what is meant by in public? on the streets, because police and others should be arround to help, as well as space to run away. you have no property to defend, why stick around?
I don’t know, I’m not good in self-defense. I don’t know what should I do except run to escape, yell for help and call the police. *IF* I see someone is using deadly force to harm others.. it’s hard to determine whether they’re protecting themselve or not.
If you can kill someone with your bare hands, you could also just subdue them. If you have a weapon you can easily subdue them. So really you have no excuse for killing them unless they are a danger to you.
That’s a silly propostition. I think we should keep this restricted, otherwise we’ll soon be able to kill people in our cars on the highway.
God bless,
SHohna
As the current law is now…yes. I think it should stay the same.
Gun rights may be one of the few positions we don’t see eye to eye on – I’m an NRA life member – I think, personally, it would be harder for me to resist using any kind of force in defending a loved one (even a pet) than if my life were threatened – See marquee at the bottom of my page…
if you are defending yourself the same should apply…I am a firm believer in the NRA…the City in this nation with the highest gun control law (washington DC) also has the highest criminal rate using guns…see, if you take the guns out of the law abiding citizens the only ones then with guns are those criminals…why people can’t see that is beyond me…
I’m the wrong person to ask. I don’t think anyone (except police officers) should own a handgun.
ABOUT A YEAR AGO AN OLDER GUY IVE KNOWN SINCE CHILDHOOD NAMED PAUL WAS ARRESTED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. PAUL WAS AN OLD NAM VET WHO LIVED DOWN THE STREET. ONE NIGHT, VERY LATE, SOMEONE BROKE INTO PAUL’S HOUSE AND STARTED TO SMASH THINGS, AND KNOCK OVER FURNITURE AND JUST DESTROY EVERYTHING. PAUL CAME DOWN STAIRS TO FIND A COMPLETELY NUDE AND, TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, HIGH AS KITE YOUNG MAN. PAUL TRIED TO CHASE THE GUY OUT AND HE PUT UP A FIGHT SO PAUL SHOT THE GUY SEVERAL TIMES AS HE WAS BEING ATTACKED AND KILLED HIM. PAUL (ALMOST 60) IS NOW A LIFER IN PA STATE PRISON FOR MURDER. GOD BLESS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM HUH?
I was under the impression that if someone broke into your house and you injure them in the act to protecting yourself, that the burglar could take YOU to court! I always felt you SHOULD be able to defend yourself and your home in that kind of situation, but didn’t think it was that ‘cut and dry’.
I think you should be able to protect yourself in any situation without fear of persecution, but I don’t think that ending the other person’s life should be a ‘right’ given. The amount of force used should be dependant on the situation.
I have a tendency to be against *anything* the NRA proposes, on principle.
This particular law would have to be very carefully worded so that a person couldn’t just kill another person because they “looked at them funny” or “behaved suspiciously.” What does that mean, anyway? It must be clearly defined.
Besides, I was under the impression that, for instance, if one is attacked on the street, it is already legal to use deadly force in self defense. Perhaps I am wrong?
hmmm.. interesting topic!
i think it would be different in public… in your home you have things that you could use as weapons (knives, heavy things, anything that you can pick up and chuck at someone). in public you might just be walking down the street with nothing around you… how in the world are you supposed to kill someone then? unless that person had a gun and you somehow got a hold of it and then shot him/her to death…
and also… i’m not sure what the laws are in the states.. but are you allowed to carry guns around with you if you have a licence? if so, wouldn’t that make people more likely to carry guns around? i dunno
no matter if someone was trying to hurt me, i don’t think i’d want to kill them… i don’t think i could bring myself to do it.
Depends on the situation.
Amanda
I honestly don’t see what the difference is…
yes, but that could be tricky. Someone could just throw a punch and you could say they were dangerous… so ya
Today I read about a man that shot a child for walking on his lawn. That is crazy.
Amanda
nope. In urban communities I could see this increasing gang activity.
If someone is holding a gun to your head in the middle of a park, and you find a chance to get the gun from them, and shoot them when they attack you to get it back, I think you should have the self-defence immunity.
I dont’ think many people who kill in self-denfense actually MEAN to kill their attacker. For example, if I were to be attacked by a rapist somewhere, and I was able to grab something I could hit him upside the head really hard with, my goal would not be to kill him, my goal would be to get him knocked out, or knocked away enough that I could run away, but it could potentially kill him. Would I be a murderer if it did? No, because it was not my intent to kill, and even the current law states that not only does the act have to be committed, but there has to be intent.
murder is wrong no matter what….but if my life was in danger in or out of my home..damn right im going to defend myself…i wouldnt kill them..unless it was accidental in the process….but i would defend myself and show them they are not going to threaten me in that sort of manner
in other words i guess…i guess i would just hurt them badly and then call the police or for help..lol
I hate that we live in this kind of society, but you have to do what’s necessary to protect yourself. Someone mentioned just shooting someone in the leg or something, which is well and good, but if a murderer/rapist is coming at me or my child, I’m gonna shoot till he’s down. Another commentor mentioned Jesus’ attitude, (I’m assuming the “turn the other cheek” statement). This is HARD for me. Does this mean Jesus would have me allow a person to sexually assault or kill my child or myself? I know there are a lot of believers on your site Dan. I’d be intereseted to hear their take on Jesus’ words in this matter?
Would people be able to use this law if they killed someone who was threatening others? Say, you see an armed robbery occurring and the robber shoots or threatens to shoot someone . . .
?
absolutely. but, that would be a helluva burden of proof to present in your trial. unless you have eyewitnesses, you’re probably SOL. but then again, there are cameras everywhere, so there is always an eyewitness. if someone is threatening me or my son, i would shoot them in a second, no secodn thoughts, no regrets. my number one priority is for the health, safety, and well being of my cub.
If someone came after me with the intent to kill me, then I would eliminate them no matter where I was…I would hope that wherever I was the law for self-defense would be the same
Yeah, they should, world watch out!!! You try to harm me I’ll kill you.
Yes.
This law already exists in several states. I don’t hear anything on the news about an epidemic of unnecessary killings. There was one here in Tampa last year. And FL is a concealed-carry state(you can get a liscense to carry a gun concealed in public).
I think they should be very clear as to defining what “life-threatening” is
hi! i was quite surprised you picked me as you have soooooo many people here. but i was quite pleased
~jess
yea. its the should be the same rights. If your life was in dager in public is just the same as it is in that persons home. i thaink there afraid that using it in public they might shoot someone else. accednetly. but what do i know im only 13. lol
no
Heck no! Good gravy granny! Let’s see, “Officer, I was sure the person was going to run over me with their car so I shot him.”
No.
I only support the immunity of self-defense if the defense is proportional to the force and the dangers posted on him …
However, it also raises another problem as to evidence…
How to prove the circustances of the killing where only the killer and the attacker presented??
ryc: what CAN’T be made into a drug, seriously.
NO…IF YOU ARE AT HOME THEN YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR HOME. BEING IN PUBLIC IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING. GOD, COULD YOU IMAGINE ALL THE NUTS THAT WOULD CLAIM “SELF DEFENSE” IN PUBLIC JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE MAD AT SOMEONE? THAT WOULD BE A HUGE MESS…BUT AT HOME…THEY ENTER, YOU PUT BUCK SHOT IN THEIR REAR END, PERIOD, THE END. THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE HECK THEY ENTERED YOUR HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE! LOL
GOOD MORNING DAN…
I don’t think most people would have the guts to kill someone, publicly or privately.
I hardly think that I would care about the law if someone were attacking me, wherever this may take place. I suppose, with this in mind, I would like my right to continue to live to be protected more than the person who was attacking me.
If your life is in danger, then yes I think you should be allowed to kill in self defence no matter where you are.
no one has the ‘right’ to kill… let’s make that clear.
the law may allow it, but all that does is make me want to leave this country! given the right judge and jury, anyone can justify homicide > there was a case in point 10 years ago in maryland, where a man kidnapped his significant other, held her a gunpoint for 8 hours, torturing her, and finally shot her. he was acquitted because the judge said it was unpremeditated and rage-induced because she had had an affair… unpremeditated, uncontrolled rage after 8 hours???? oh puleeez!
if there is an intruder in your home, leave the premises and dial 911. if you are in a public place, leave the area, and dial 911. scream, shout, yell… but killing? that would indicate to me that the NRA also wants us to all carry concealed weapons just in case we need to kill people.
sorry, but this is not the wild west
so if you kill a criminal in public you get prosecuted?
CHECK YOUR EMAIL…
DEBBIE
I suppose so… arguably you could be in public at night or something and get dragged into an alleyway and it’s still pretty private. But then what if it’s a crowded street?
It’s hard to say.
While I agree that the new law won’t probably bring a sudden splurge of killing sprees, I do think that the use of non-lethal force should always be the first option. If you think about police brutality and all the unnecessary killings they do (a kid was recently shot for pulling his wallet out of his jacket in front of cops to get his ID), do you really want that power in the hands of ordinary people on the street?
If you want to protect your “cub”, “pet”, “loved ones” etc., keep them out of places where it’s known to be unsafe. Follow simple guidelines like choosing the most populated, brightly lit avenue to walk down. Don’t go home alone (especially if you’re a girl), always make sure you’re with your posse.
And where the hell did that D.C. statistic come from? Sounds like NRA propaganda to me. Our capitol has been a pretty safe place (free of rampaging gun murders and stuff) to live in since the mid-90s. Before that, it could be argued that most of those murders happened because of crack.
Oh, and hi Dan… I’ve been reading the theologian’s cafe for the last two weeks but this is the first time I’ve bothered to comment. I don’t know if anyone’s suggested this before, but maybe you should pick the most eloquent answers out of the ones you get and post them on the site? It’s always nice to see who has something real to say without having to scroll through pages of “yes!” “no!” “no wayz lolz!” and “am i in the top 10? top 50? first poster!”
there are too many people for us to return to the wild west
In court such a law would only apply to those that the legislators were trying to protect in the first place– the idea being that judges are intelligent enough to interpret the legislation accordingly. If the criterion for the significance of the threat required to justify lethal action in self defense is clear cut enough to avoid a significant amount of errors or abuses… why not? When the hat is in the air, shouldn’t people be able to defend themselves however they feel is necessary without worrying about whether or not they’re going to accidently kill someone who is obviously committing battery (perhaps on a lethal scale) against them? If the law says, “no lethal force in public if you’re being attacked” then how can people possibly defend themselves against criminals who do not respect the law?
Um…don’t know what to say really ^^are they really need to??
The law is fine the way it is. You should have a duty to avoid fights. What’s ironic about this change in the law is that it would create a whole new defense for real murderers.
I have studied the issue you are speaking of. As it stands, the onus is on the state to decide whether the killing was justified or not. Lawmakers look at the circumstances in each individual case. The main thing to be considered is the potential danger from collateral damage. If the guy misses his target or shoots through the target, there is a real possibility of another person being struck particularly in an urban environment.
I am trying to recall the details of an incident that I believe happened in Dallas, but it was several years ago and I can’t find anything in a web search right now.
My opinion is that we don’t need any legislation. Too many things have to be determined in an instant at the time of the assault. My guess is that most such incidents would go un-noticed until it was too late to respond anyway. These things happen so quickly and you have to determine if there is a danger, how much danger, if the danger can be avoided, and whether it is safe to respond with a firearm. I don’t think most police officers would be able to make such snap judgements unless they had prior knowledge of the circumstances – much less someone who has never been trained in dealing with such scenarios.
We just need to let the courts decide on a case by case basis as they do now in such circumstances.
L,r
what does it matter. everybody just goes to jail and nothing ever happens to them anyway…. just a slap on the wrist and a dont do it again.
No, in your own home is much different because you own it and you are protecting your stuff. Outside your home is not yours to control.
i think a person should have the same rights in self-defense in private as in public. as far as the killing thing, thats a fine line but personally it would be a little comforting because if the only way i could get read of them was shocking them or shooting them …then yeah. of course i would try to get away first thats for sure and i wouldn’t necessarily want to kill them either….it would be hard to live with the knowledge you killed someone and it would probably be sad more than anything but mostly i would be sad because the person didn’t know better than to attack me. i would always be thankful that i didn’t get raped or anything because i had the right to do what i had to do to get rid of them.
i always thought if i had to i would just try to knock them out. but like someone else said, this will bog down the court systems even more…..but all in all it doesn’t really matter cuz i live in canada so this doesn’t really affect me.
shake it like a salt shaker
Yes, they should. When self preservation is a factor,
defensive combat should not have a limit on where it is.
Hey Dan,
Because of some painful past experiences…I would say yes….pass the laws.
Candy
I don’t care where a person is. If someone is trying to kill me, I will do what I have to do in the privacy of my home, or in public. Yeah, I can be a hardass
if it’s in self defense, definitely. you don’t just stand by and let someone try to harm you.
i used to live in a city in georgia called kennesaw georgia. they have a gun law there requiring homeowners in the city limits to own a gun. there is no crime in kennesaw now..
This seems like little more than a ploy to re-categorize “murder” under the pretense of “self-defense”. At least it would help during propaganda campaigns when the NRA (and the government) need to statistically show murder rates dropping.
i would rather die than kill. i know what my future hope is, and the person attacking me probably doesn’t. it reminds me of missionaries in the amazon. They were proclaiming the Gospel to one of the most violent tribes in the area. The people were almost wiped out because of their violence. the missionaries had a gun, but took a vow to never use it against the people because they were not ready for heaven but the missionaries were. that’s the life i want to live.
We all have a right to defend ourselves…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; right?
I also agree, every case is different. I can’t imagine the fear that is involved if someone is attempting to enter your home, and to be attacked in public, well, it’s probably the same fear that would make a person kill/harm in self-defense.
Depends on the danger, situation, and person.
In most cases no, but if someone is trying to take away your right to live, that nullifies his right to not be harmed.
Everyone should defend thereselves and if it’s necessary to kill them in order to save your life then yes.
Yes
I agree with the decision to legalize the death of a perpertrator of one’s home. If it were only me, I wouldn’t take to a gun at all. When my kids were small, I think I would have shot anyone who came near them. Not that my desire would have made the action morally right.
Or as I expressed it to my husband then: The kids and I are going to heaven when we die. Where is the intruder going? I think it’s more important that the intruder be left alive to take another chance at knowing God and to attain eternal life. I would not want to be responsible for a person’s eternal death.
My mother always said I was crazy. Maybe. I do think this is what Jesus wants. God does not take joy in the death of a sinner.
I forgot to say that I think such a law would be a negligence on the part of lawmakers. If it’s voted on by the people, I believe-and hope-it will be defeated. Defending oneself in public with a gun? What a mess! Like someone said, here’s where the real murderers get going. What about the “snap judgments” someone else mentioned” What about the innocent people around you? I know parts of Atlanta where people hang out, just looking for a fight. These, and people like these, would be the first to try out the new law.
How do people come up with these things? Boredom? Stupidity? An urge to sell guns?
tomdiggety, thank you! I know that story of the missionaries in the Amazon, and it has made a huge difference in the way I think. Thanks for your answer. It was a real blessing to me.
I think that they should have the same rights in public as in their own home. It is your life that is at stake, no matter where you may be at the time.
Sure.
I’m for the death penalty, but to put it in the hands of Gunowner McGee for use during any crime seems a bit, well, insane. Maybe if the criminal is armed, likely to harm to someone, and is not currently trying to escape (unless the criminal has killed), then you can kill them, but a bank robber who’s fleeing the scene after an injury-free robbery shouldn’t get his brains blown-out by Gunowner McGee (His middle name is BankRobberyHostage, hence his nickname: Rob).
The problem with some of these responses is that they’re unreasonable. This is not to reflect poorly on them, but they don’t apply to real-world situations.
Martial arts training? That’s good. The mind set alone is worth it. Against an attacker with a firearm? Don’t count on it. Nobody’s faster than a bullet, and nobody outdrew the weapon that was already pointed at them. You can’t simply ‘disable’ someone all the time, even if you do have considerable martial arts training. An opponent with a weapon immediately unbalances the scenario- if the opponent knows what he’s doing, then you have a problem, if he doesn’t, you have a bigger problem because people who don’t know what they’re doing are unpredictable.
Shooting someone in the arm or leg? The only time a self-defense shooting outside the home is justified as reasonable force is when either you or someone else have reasonable fear that the attacker is trying to kill you or do you serious injury. The only safe and possible response to that is lethal force, it’s the only way to ensure that you are not injured or killed.
The other thing is it bothers me that people are worried about the attacker. I call that assumed risk. The attacker KNOWS that it’s wrong to injure, kill, or rob another person. Obviously it is possible that the potential victim will not like that and will resist. What rights does the attacker have? As far as I’m concerned, none. Rights are for those who respect the laws that make them possible. If you get shot committing a crime, that’s just too bad.
Moreover, for the people who are saying that it is unChristian to defend yourself, I refer you to Luke 22:36. Jesus, telling his disciples what they must do after he is gone, says (Verse 35) “He also said to them, ‘When I sent you out without money-bag, backpack, or sandles, did you lack anything?’ ‘Not a thing,’ they said. (Verse 36) Then He said to them, ‘But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a backpack. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one.’” Jesus commands his followers to obtain the means to self-defense, knowing that they alone remain to spread His Word and that they will be persecuted when He is gone.
Matthew 5:39 is also frequently cited by those opposing self-defense. “But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also.” The problem with assuming this means Christians are to do nothing is that it ignores the cultural context in which the verse was written. A slap on the cheek in most Mediterranean cultures at the time was regarded as an insult worthy of physical response. What Jesus is saying is that you should not respond to insults, not that you should be a sheep to be slaughtered.
yes of course if your life is in danger and you can prove it then yes it should be no different then inside your house i see no reason why it should be any different tell me if you do cause i would like to hear the other side
Considering how difficult it would be for a murderer to prove that he was acting in self-defense if he actually wasn’t, I don’t think the new law would be too exploitable to be effective.
Also, generally speaking, most incidents in which one might need to act in self-defense don’t occur in their own homes, and so expanding it to the public would make more sense. The fact that the law is limited to just our homes is absurd, and I don’t subscribe to the theory that people would murder out of anger just because it’s LEGAL. Most sociological studies indicate that the majority of murderers are sociopaths who feel no remorse or regard for life or the law or consequences, and so making the law more lax isn’t going to encourage murderers to murder, seeing how they would have most likely commited them even if the law was more strict. Nor would it encourage anyone who doesn’t presently have homicidal inclinations under the current law to murder.
<
<
<
<
<
CHECK EM OUT!
<
<
<
<
<
<
YES
That’s a grey area. Who knows what could be defined as dangerous? Would this be taking away part of our freedom in some way? There are too many negative outcomes that are possible.
[ariana]
Yes…for self defense, and I think that the law should CLEARLY define self defense. Otherwise, you wind up with a country full of gunslingers.