laughing dog
Contributor
If someone is going to throw the TV at you and you have no way to avoid it, it could be self-defense. I doubt that was the case in this instance.1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.
If someone is going to throw the TV at you and you have no way to avoid it, it could be self-defense. I doubt that was the case in this instance.1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.
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?
I definitely think the home invader has the biggest share of responsibility here. I do not think the homeowner should be shooting wildly, like that guy in Texas though.For some reason, that question does not vex people like Derec. They assign the responsibility and legal blame on the original target (the housebreaker) and absolve the actual shooter of any responsibility for their action. Apparently, they feel that the cry of "self defense" allows just about reaction.
There is a huge, and qualitative difference between violent crime such as home invasion and non-violent crime like Bernie making off with your money.What about people who steals millions from pension funds? Is it ok to kill them too?
Well the homeowner did right. It was not optimum, perhaps, but he did well ending the threat. There is also no mention of rounds he discharged hitting any other houses for that matter, unless I missed it. It is probably the case of using whatever loaded gun you have when you have to defend yourself.Then why are you holding up the actions of the homeowners' as some kind of example of things going right? Why the fuck would any sane person discharge a high-powered rifle in a residential neighborhood, knowing fully well that a shotgun would be just as effective at detering or even bringing down a home invader without putting the lives of your neighbors at significant risk?
I would think that would be the case in all states. While laws on allowable self defense vary, I do not know of any where you shooting a home invader would count as anything but self-defense.In some states it is, if that person is inside your home.1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.
That's what I think of legislatures that make it a crime to defend yourself against intruders.If the Florida or Texas state legislature passes a law saying that black is white, it doesn't make it so; It just illustrates the insanity of the people voting in those legislatures.
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn said:In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?
The point is that deadly force is used not for revenge, but because people breaking into your house present a clear and present danger to you or other people in the house.You are allowed to kill someone who breaks into your home to steal a $500 tv. But you can't shoot the assholes who made your life savings vanish? Life is not fair.
Home invaders do pose such a threat. White collar criminals do not.I agree with you that it is insane for the law to allow the use of lethal force against people who do not pose a threat to your life or the lives of others in the house. But that is how the law is written.
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). But people are not omniscient. If a person or several people break into your home, you do not know the extent of their intentions. 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.It cannot be defined as such in any meaningful moral or ethical way.
Killing somebody in self defense is not murder.1. Murdering someone for picking up a television is not self-defense.
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.
I would think the full auto version would be more than 5% different, as you do not only need a selector, but various mechanical components would have to be different too.I'm pretty certain the AR-15 shares 95% of its parts with the XM-177, M-16, M-16A1, M-16A2 and M-4.
It seems to me that this quote referred to the original, military (selective fire), version of the rifle.There's also the added wrinkle that Eugene Stoner never thought such a weapon should be readily available for civilian use.
Why do you only care about these high profile cases? They constitute a small fraction of homicide victims. They are not even all "mass shootings", since those are defined by number of people shot, not how much time media is spending covering them.Semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre, not to mention Parkland and the Las Vegas bloodbath..
I think Dems do want to talk about that, since banning "assault weapons" is one of their obsessions. That they are not touting the numbers you seek most likely means they are not favorable to their idée fixe.I couldn't find stats on the percentage of mass shooting deaths attributable to AR-style semi auto rifles. Almost as if nobody wants to talk about that.
I'd look for the selector switch.But I'm quite sure that Derec would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an AR-15 from the local gun shop and a military issue .223 assault rifle.
I have fired an AR15 once, at a shooting range. It has been a while though.Also sure he has never handled either, and so doesn't know why they are under such scrutiny.
How is "what these rifles do to human flesh" different than other rifles firing the same cartridge?He has also never worked in EMS or any other field where he might have to actually see what those rifles do to human flesh.
BS, as usual. It is the Dems that malign out of "blissful ignorance", for example by mixing up AR15 and AR50.He considers those weapons "maligned" from his place of blissful ignorance, an opinion that can be safely ignored.
Are you denying that you advocated paying thieves and robbers a government stipend to incentivize them not to steal and rob?I have never advocated for that.
Deadly home invasions are far more common that deadly meteorite strikes.People get killed by meteorite strikes.
Bullshit. Once somebody is breaking into your house with you inside, danger can be presumed. And the homeowner can and should act accordingly.It's not sane to give a moment of thought to this risk, though. Only paranoia can explain a person who is worried about such rare events.
I think death penalty should be abolished too. That does not change the facts surrounding these cases.Yes, I am fully aware that your country is horrific and utterly uncivilised.
I do not know. How high do you think it can be before you think the home-owners should be allowed to defend themselves?How many? What proportion of break-ins do they represent?
Might be a difference with Aussie English, but that is not the case here. Here, "housebreaking" is not a legal term, but home invasion is.Nope, burglary is of an occupied, or likely to bd occupied, dwelling. When it's likely to be unoccupied, it's housebreaking.
"Home invasion" is tabloid media propaganda, instigated because "burglary" didn't sound scary enough.
Not really. Any rifle that is semi auto can be fully auto. The bolt operates the same way.I would think the full auto version would be more than 5% different, as you do not only need a selector, but various mechanical components would have to be different too.
I am not saying it is not similar in operation. But that more than 5% of the parts would probably be different. The selector switch has to connect to something to change between continuous, burst and single fire. That something does not need to be there in the civilian version, and so the parts will be different, even if it is a few gears and cogs.Not really. Any rifle that is semi auto can be fully auto. The bolt operates the same way.