Say that as much as you'd like. You're wrong.I am not saying it is not similar in operation. But that more than 5% of the parts would probably be different.
Say that as much as you'd like. You're wrong.I am not saying it is not similar in operation. But that more than 5% of the parts would probably be different.
Why?Possible, but unlikely. A round going through two walls may still have enough kinetic energy to be lethal - depending on the material of the siding and what it hits along the way (electric conduits/boxes, studs, etc.) but the chances of hitting such a small target wildly are rather small.What happens when a 7.62 FMJ round from an AK47 rifle traveling at 2,300 ft/sec penetrates the wall of your house and the wall of your neighbor and kills his 3-year old?
But let's say it happens. The homeowner might face some charges for being reckless, but in any case the robber - if he survives - should be facing felony murder charges.
Unpalatable facts don’t register with RW extremists . Besides, gun deaths are only a fraction of all deaths, so why bother? More people have died from mosquitoes!Say that as much as you'd like. You're wrong.I am not saying it is not similar in operation. But that more than 5% of the parts would probably be different.
Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self defense.Killing somebody in self defense is not murder.1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.
You did, and it isn't.I did not and it is not. It is the reality. There are many cases of home invasions where occupants have been harmed (including rapes) or killed.2. You pulled that completely out of your ass without any justification or evidence and as such it is so pathetically weak as an argument it shall be summarily dismissed entirely.
So no, shooting intruders is not about the TV. Although obviously these scumbags do not have the right to steal people's TVs either.
And if someone broke in and pulled out a weapon, that would be another thing entirely.Why not? I mean if you could know for sure your TV is all they want, it could be argued that lethal force is not permissible (unless they pull out a weapon or otherwise attack you if you confront them).It cannot be defined as such in any meaningful moral or ethical way.
Ah, but that argument works both ways - if you can't know the extent of their intent, assuming harmful intent is as random and unjustifiable as assuming benign intent.But people are not omniscient. If a person or several people break into your home, you do not know the extent of their intentions.
Two things:And you are neither morally nor legally required to wait and find out if they just want your TV or if they want to bind you, rape your wife and kill you both. Which is a scenario that has sadly happened repeatedly in home invasion cases.
I disagree with the "often want to harm" part--but all too many encounters between burglars and occupants end up with hurt occupants even though that wasn't the objective of entering the house. The best outcome is no encounter between the occupants and the burglar, but that's not always how it plays out. You go hunt the burglar, you're a bad guy. You shoot when the burglar is coming towards you, it's his unlucky day.1. Self-defense is not murder.3. vastly reform home insurance (or, ideally, just nationalize it) so that high value personal items are replaceable and you don't feel the need to *murder another human being* over your television.
2. Home invaders often want to harm or even murder occupants, not just steal their stuff. You can't take that chance.
You can't remove them from the bad guys in a society with a reasonable level of freedom. Stop & frisk is horrendously unconstitutional.Repeat offenders are a big problem. If we effectively remove guns from those not allowed to have them, a lot of gun crime would be eliminated. That was the aim behind stop, question and frisk, which Bill de Blowjob ended because it disarmed too many of his voters.
People who want minimum possible interaction with occupants try to burgle a place when it is unoccupied. A dwelling being occupied is what distinguishes a burglary from a home invasion.In my experience, home invaders want the minimum possible interaction with the occupants, and see physical violence as an absolute last resort - a disastrous outcome to be avoided if possible.
I do not think a homeowner should have to take a chance that the home invader is just an idiot who can't tell when a house is empty vs. somebody who wants to harm the homeowner's family.
There apparently are differences between countries.Nope, burglary is of an occupied, or likely to bd occupied, dwelling. When it's likely to be unoccupied, it's housebreaking.A dwelling being occupied is what distinguishes a burglary from a home invasion.
"Home invasion" is tabloid media propaganda, instigated because "burglary" didn't sound scary enough.
I was talking about crimes of violence. White collar is different matter but not really relevant--we are talking about situations where force might be used.And white collar crime...Domestic violence aside of courseMy issue has always been about how "good guys" are solely being defined by their lack of a criminal record. I can't think of any bad guy who didn't start with a clean criminal record. Gun reform (since clearly, we can't get rid of them) should only be about good guys (law-abiding citizens selling guns) not arming bad guys (those with no criminal record obviously buying one for a criminal act). How we can do so is something I'm not sure of but we don't seem o be having that talk.
If your record is clean at 21 it's very unlikely you'll go bad later.
I said probably. You are categorical that it is <5%. Do you have any evidence that matches the certainty you display here?Say that as much as you'd like. You're wrong.
They should most definitely be banned because they look like military rifles. The people who buy such a rifle are irresponsible cunts who just want to look tough on instagram.What matters is that civilian AR15s and AK47s are semi-auto weapons, similar to other non-assaulty semi-auto rifles and they should not be banned just because they resemble military weapons.
The reason for these felony murder statutes is that a crime such as home invasion carries a risk of death that the perps are aware of. They thus commit the crime knowing that somebody dying is a possible outcome.Why?
What reason is there to elevate the charge of house breaking to murder, because of the actions of someone other than the defendant?
If they did not decide to invade somebody's home, there would be no self defense, and thus no possibility of any rounds going wild and endangering anybody else.The whole 'felony murder' thing is nuts. Criminals are responsible for their crimes, but they surely aren't responsible for the recklessness of their victims.
Sometimes prosecutors and courts take the felony murder stuff too far. I do not think holding participants in a robbery accountable for deaths that result from the robbery is too far.You might as well charge someone with murder because they burgled the home of a person who ran down a pedestrian on his way home from work.
What "unpalatable facts"? It was a sidebar about a technical detail about what percentage of parts are different between two rifles. Not really germane to any of the themes of this thread.Unpalatable facts don’t register with RW extremists.
Sigh. I am in favor of reasonable gun laws. Banning certain guns based on what they look like even though many more gun crimes are committed using handguns is not reasonable. And yet Dems spend so much time and political capital on this quixotic issue.Besides, gun deaths are only a fraction of all deaths, so why bother? More people have died from mosquitoes!
FIFY.Ignorance is bliss - why makeDerecElixir miserable?
Neither of us has enough information to say anything useful about any specific cases, unless we were present in court for the duration of any trial.Btw, what do you think of the case of Lakeith Smith?
Who is talking about "picking up a television"? When some perps enter your home while you and your family are there, there is no time to ascertain what they are there for.Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self defense.
Very true. That is my point. If the perps just want your TV, they can do this. If they enter your house while you are home, are they just stupid or do they have a more nefarious purpose? Neither law nor morality requires you to take that chance.Most domicile break-in and robberies are done between the hours of 10am and 4pm as to avoid residents.
I am sure a lot of them are. Do you have any evidence on the "most"?Further, most domicile break-in and robberies are done by persons known the owners.
So we should just ignore those who want to harm the occupants of the house, right?most people robbing houses want to get in, grab some valuables, get out.
I did not pull anything out of my ass. The instances where there is a confrontation is the denominator here. We are not talking all burglaries, but specifically those where the victims are home. In those cases, the victims should not assume that the perps just want their TV and do not want to harm them physically.Yes confrontations can and do happen, so of course there are instances where an occupant has a run-in with a robber, but relative to the total number of break-ins those are incredibly rare - which utterly demolishes your infantile lie that you pulled completely out of your ass.
Home invaders are a subset of all burglars. Home invasion is specifically the case when somebody breaks into an occupied dwelling. As you said, most burglars just want to get in, grab valuables, and get out. And breaking into a house with people there is not conducive to that objective. So home invasion is not the same at all as a regular stealthy burglary.You made the wildly inaccurate and spurious claim that:
"Home invaders often want to harm or even murder occupants, not just steal their stuff."
My thoughts exactly! I think you are misunderstanding this whole discussion.This is such a load of shit it's oozing out of your ears.
I think now you are finally getting it. Home invasion is much more dangerous than a regular burglary.Though, I'd be willing to concede to "Home invaders are often willing to harm or murder occupants, if they try to prevent them stealing their stuff" - but only specifically because "home invasion" is legally defined as entering a domicile while armed with the intent to commit a crime.
I guess you do not know me at all.However, I know you, and I know you are trying to conflate "home invasion" with "any time anyone enters someone home" to try to bolster the credibility of your Rambo masturbation fantasy, and I'm absolutely not tolerating any of that shit from you.
I do not think they need to pull out a weapon for self defense to be permissible. On the other hand, if they start fleeing when confronted, I do not think it should be permissible to shoot the perps.And if someone broke in and pulled out a weapon, that would be another thing entirely.
The risk is not symmetrical though. If they have harmful intent and you do not react forcefully enough, you may end up dead.Ah, but that argument works both ways - if you can't know the extent of their intent, assuming harmful intent is as random and unjustifiable as assuming benign intent.
Do you have evidence that "instances [of home invasion] where they just wanted some shit to sell to a pawn shop" happen "vastly more frequently"?Two things:
1. Yes, it has happened - and instances where they just wanted some shit to sell to a pawn shop has happened vastly more frequently.
Of home invasion? I doubt that very much. Do you have any evidence for that claim?2. Your presentation on this issue relies on the assumption of intent to harm, which is proven statistically to be a vast tiny minority of cases.
You were not kidding. It was meandering.Which leads to 3, but 3 is... rather a philosophical meandering derail. I realized that after I typed it up.
Danger is given by the invasion itself.The core of your argument that it is right and proper for a home owner to murder another person for the sin of being inside their house is predicated on the notion that the home owner might, maybe, potentially, on the off chance, be in some physical danger.
Protection of private property is one of the core pillars of any civilization.Drilling down further, your argument assumes a moral framework wherein owning property makes you intrinsically more valuable, and thus one who has less property or is attempting to acquire property in a way that is outside the rigged system that you benefit from makes one a non-entity that can be summarily killed.
If you frisk everybody you stop then I would agree. But the S&F programs also have the intermediate step of questioning, to establish probable cause.Stop & frisk is horrendously unconstitutional.
Why should looks make a ban justifiable?They should most definitely be banned because they look like military rifles.
Not wanting people to look tough on Insta is not a sufficient reason to restrict a constitutional right.The people who buy such a rifle are irresponsible cunts who just want to look tough on instagram.