Do people have the right to.... (1 Viewer)

[Kal'Stang]

Simple question. Do people have the right to defend themselves in their own home with a gun?

Yes.

No.

Other.

Please explain your choices.

I say yes, of course they do. It's completely insane to think otherwise. And laws like Heller overturned most definitely should never have been thought of, much less enacted. Yet it is those laws which is touted as being "common sense gun laws" (the premise with which they were enacted in the first place). Laws that required long guns or shot guns to be either unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Laws that banned hand guns with the only ones being exempt being owned prior to 1975 and those owned by cops or retired cops.

 

[joG]

Simple question. Do people have the right to defend themselves in their own home with a gun?

Yes.

No.

Other.

Please explain your choices.

I say yes, of course they do. It's completely insane to think otherwise. And laws like Heller overturned most definitely should never have been thought of, much less enacted. Yet it is those laws which is touted as being "common sense gun laws" (the premise with which they were enacted in the first place). Laws that required long guns or shot guns to be either unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Laws that banned hand guns with the only ones being exempt being owned prior to 1975 and those owned by cops or retired cops.

Even in countries that forbid ownership of weapons you are allowed to defend your life violently in your own home. You would go to jail for ownership or if the attack was against your possessions, though.

 

[HonestJoe]

Simple question. Do people have the right to defend themselves in their own home with a gun?

The location and weapon are largely moot in relation to that core question; (when and how) do you have the right to defend yourself? You have the right to defend yourself in someone else’s home, at work or on the street and you have the right to defend yourself with your fists, a tyre iron or a knife. What you actually do is more significant than where you are and what you do with it.

The definition of “defend yourself” and the massive range of circumstances and conditions where the question could come up is where the complexity really is. The focus on guns (and to an extent, our homes) actually seem to pose something of a distraction to that in the US.

The question you’re actually answering is about the balance between safety and security in how guns are stored and handled compared to their availability and ease of use in the event that they’re needed in an emergency. I think the key word there is balance (as it so often is) given that there are obviously risks and disadvantages inherent in either extreme.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes. Unquestioningly, no hesitation, absolutely.

 

[_Sal]

The location and weapon are largely moot in relation to that core question; (when and how) do you have the right to defend yourself? You have the right to defend yourself in someone else’s home, at work or on the street and you have the right to defend yourself with your fists, a tyre iron or a knife. What you actually do is more significant than where you are and what you do with it.

The definition of “defend yourself” and the massive range of circumstances and conditions where the question could come up is where the complexity really is. The focus on guns (and to an extent, our homes) actually seem to pose something of a distraction to that in the US.

The question you’re actually answering is about the balance between safety and security in how guns are stored and handled compared to their availability and ease of use in the event that they’re needed in an emergency. I think the key word there is balance (as it so often is) given that there are obviously risks and disadvantages inherent in either extreme.

that is nicely laid out and explained :thumbs:

 

[countryboy]

The location and weapon are largely moot in relation to that core question; (when and how) do you have the right to defend yourself? You have the right to defend yourself in someone else’s home, at work or on the street and you have the right to defend yourself with your fists, a tyre iron or a knife. What you actually do is more significant than where you are and what you do with it.

The definition of “defend yourself” and the massive range of circumstances and conditions where the question could come up is where the complexity really is. The focus on guns (and to an extent, our homes) actually seem to pose something of a distraction to that in the US.

The question you’re actually answering is about the balance between safety and security in how guns are stored and handled compared to their availability and ease of use in the event that they’re needed in an emergency. I think the key word there is balance (as it so often is) given that there are obviously risks and disadvantages inherent in either extreme.

Holy ****ing **** dude, it was a yes or no question. :roll:

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

criminals are scum, they warrant no consideration, you should have the right to exterminate them wherever they are found.

 

[countryboy]

that is nicely laid out and explained :thumbs:

Yeah, verbose way of saying, "only under certain circumstances which are deemed acceptable by gun control nuts". :

 

[Lovebug]

Absolutely. Depending on where you live, it may just save your life knowing how to use a gun.
Cop response time varies greatly.
That being said, it is my hope to never having to make a life or death decision like that. Knowing that I can and will defend my family and myself is of comfort, and no one should have the right to take that choice from me.

 

[HonestJoe]

Holy ****ing **** dude, it was a yes or no question. :roll:

It’d be a pretty boring forum if we just answered “yes” or “no” all day. There are actually very few questions that are really a simple “yes or no” and Kal’Stang made it quite clear in their commentary that they wanted to expand the discussion beyond the “simple” question.

If you’re happy giving a simple “yes” then just moving on, you’re free to do so though.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yes of course. However, its typically limited to protecting your life or others in your home from harm and not necessarily extended to protecting your property. Personally, I don't think I would lose much sleep over shooting someone that came in my home and put my family's lives at risk. However, if it was just them stealing something, I would rather them have my TV than for me to have to shoot someone over it.

 

[TheGoverness]

Yes. End of story.

 

[Lovebug]

Yes of course. However, its typically limited to protecting your life or others in your home from harm and not necessarily extended to protecting your property. Personally, I don't think I would lose much sleep over shooting someone that came in my home and put my family's lives at risk. However, if it was just them stealing something, I would rather them have my TV than for me to have to shoot someone over it.

I like to agree. If someone takes something from my home without harming anyone, no material possession is worth taking a life.
But what if? How do you know that the person stealing your tv will not escalate when confronted? It does take some gall, a certain mindset, breaking and entering someone's home for whatever reason. Is that person high on drugs? How far will he/she go when caught? What if said person doesn't want to be identified?
It is easy to theorize, but we won't know how we will react until we experience a situation necessitating life and death decisions. We may not have time to evaluate sufficiently and just react.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Simple question. Do people have the right to defend themselves in their own home with a gun?

I voted yes, seems fairly straight forward. The courts have consistently recognized that you have the right (although not explicit) to defend yourself and your home with a gun.

Our issue, which is only going to get worse, is how various cities and states go about enacting gun laws that dictate how gun are handled on the persons or in the home. The bad news is modern liberalism has no intention of slowing down on continuing to chip away at the 2nd Amendment and associated case rulings on the matter. DC, Chicago, NY, and others push this limit all the time. The good news is so long as the Supreme Court stays conservative to at least moderate then odds are they will not be so quick to allow cities and states to get away with these efforts.

So it comes down to the disposition of the Supreme Court. I can a concern on an overly liberal court deciding that regardless of the 2nd Amendment or prior associated case rulings that government has the right to determine what we buy and how we handle firearms of all types for the purpose of "public safety."

 

[Russell797]

You have the same right as you do anywhere else. You must be directly threatened with immediate life taking force to justify killing someone. Just because someone breaks into your home does not give you the right to kill them.

 

[countryboy]

It’d be a pretty boring forum if we just answered “yes” or “no” all day. There are actually very few questions that are really a simple “yes or no” and Kal’Stang made it quite clear in their commentary that they wanted to expand the discussion beyond the “simple” question.

If you’re happy giving a simple “yes” then just moving on, you’re free to do so though.

So, were you honest and voted "no"?.

 

[WCH]

Yes of course. However, its typically limited to protecting your life or others in your home from harm and not necessarily extended to protecting your property. Personally, I don't think I would lose much sleep over shooting someone that came in my home and put my family's lives at risk. However, if it was just them stealing something, I would rather them have my TV than for me to have to shoot someone over it.

Only problem I see is if you witness the person(s) burglarizing your home/property [and they see you], will they stop there or feel the need to make sure there are no witnesses?

It's another of those spit second, life or death decisions.

 

[WCH]

You have the same right as you do anywhere else. You must be directly threatened with immediate life taking force to justify killing someone. Just because someone breaks into your home does not give you the right to kill them.

How would you know if your life was being or going to be threatened? By the time you figure that out, it could be too late.

 

[HonestJoe]

So, were you honest and voted "no"?.

If I’d bothered voting at all I would have had to choose “other”. I thought I’d been quite clear in explaining why I thought the poll question was flawed and not as open to a clear yes or no answer as suggested. The wider practical, moral and legal questions it raised, including the ones the OP chose to follow on with, are more relevant and interesting.

 

[_Sal]

Holy ****ing **** dude, it was a yes or no question. :roll:

no, it isn't

Yeah, verbose way of saying, "only under certain circumstances which are deemed acceptable by gun control nuts". :

not if you know how to read it isn't

 

[X Factor]

I think you have the right to, not only defend your life and the lives of your family, you have the right to defend your property too (within your home) with deadly force if necessary. Home invasion in and of itself is an act of violence.

 

[Russell797]

How would you know if your life was being or going to be threatened? By the time you figure that out, it could be too late.

If a gun or a knife were presented to me as a threat. It's a dilemma for sure which the break-in victim did not invite, but just because you have access to a gun does not grant you the rights of jury, judge and executioner.

I have conversed with those who say the moment someone enters their home uninvited the intruder will be blown away, no questions asked. That's just wrong. What if the intruder is an alzheimer’s disease victim or otherwise disorientated?

 

[American]

I voted yes, seems fairly straight forward. The courts have consistently recognized that you have the right (although not explicit) to defend yourself and your home with a gun.

Our issue, which is only going to get worse, is how various cities and states go about enacting gun laws that dictate how gun are handled on the persons or in the home. The bad news is modern liberalism has no intention of slowing down on continuing to chip away at the 2nd Amendment and associated case rulings on the matter. DC, Chicago, NY, and others push this limit all the time. The good news is so long as the Supreme Court stays conservative to at least moderate then odds are they will not be so quick to allow cities and states to get away with these efforts.

So it comes down to the disposition of the Supreme Court. I can a concern on an overly liberal court deciding that regardless of the 2nd Amendment or prior associated case rulings that government has the right to determine what we buy and how we handle firearms of all types for the purpose of "public safety."

This election year is all about the Supreme Court, and the Left thinks they were just handed a gift from god with Scalia's death. They can't believe their luck. Keeping Hillary out is more important than ever. Hillary will try to get a leftwing loon on the court.

 

[RetiredUSN]

If a gun or a knife were presented to me as a threat. It's a dilemma for sure which the break-in victim did not invite, but just because you have access to a gun does not grant you the rights of jury, judge and executioner.

I have conversed with those who say the moment someone enters their home uninvited the intruder will be blown away, no questions asked. That's just wrong. What if the intruder is an alzheimer’s disease victim or otherwise disorientated?

Break into my house with or without a weapon, and I promise you that you will be looking down the barrel of the judge, jury, and executioner. If you didn't enter with a weapon, there will be one by your side before the police get there.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The location and weapon are largely moot in relation to that core question; (when and how) do you have the right to defend yourself? You have the right to defend yourself in someone else’s home, at work or on the street and you have the right to defend yourself with your fists, a tyre iron or a knife. What you actually do is more significant than where you are and what you do with it.

The definition of “defend yourself” and the massive range of circumstances and conditions where the question could come up is where the complexity really is. The focus on guns (and to an extent, our homes) actually seem to pose something of a distraction to that in the US.

The question you’re actually answering is about the balance between safety and security in how guns are stored and handled compared to their availability and ease of use in the event that they’re needed in an emergency. I think the key word there is balance (as it so often is) given that there are obviously risks and disadvantages inherent in either extreme.

I can't agree. The question is whether any of us should be able to defend ourselves in our own home with a gun. And if that is the weapon we choose to use--in some circumstances it could be the ONLY logical weapon we could use--there should be no question that we have every right to use it whether we are talking hand gun, shot gun, deer rifle, or cannon..