Summations Only

What does the eyewitness who wasn't trying to talk himself out of a murder charge have to say about it? Yes. According to the WP Castle Doctrine page, it's comparable to that of many states. But it was found that he'd done nothing criminal, that can't be right. I'm sure Hattori would be most interested in your opinion if he was less dead.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If the law as it is written does indeed allow the intentional shooting dead of people for no other reason than the belief that they are going to commit an inconsequential felony on your property - Can you at least see why we are objecting to that law?If it does allow that without legal consequence would you agree that it is a bad law? So you think it is important to have as part of the law but have no idea what it says?Isn't this rather key to whether it is a good law or a bad law in terms of what it allows home owners to do without facing legal consequence? I am not interested in what sounds better. I am interested in what the law allows home owners to do to people without facing legal consequences for their actions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

still putting words into my mouth and then argueing agaist what you said, i said (i think this is called a strawman).if you notice: notice that if "i have too" at the end. probably not. geniuses like yourself probably could never debate a point if they didn't take thinkgs out of context. uh no it won't there is no castle doctrine in the Commonwealth of Virginia, (i have only stated this at least twice before). I have no Castle Doctrine, I just wish I did. my thoughts exactly. my count is 37 states, i think the wikipedia page you referenced is outdated.retard thanks for being honest though this was very easy to determine solely based on your opinions on this matter. I have seen both sides, I am orinigally from the People's Republic of the Police State of Illinois; a place where gun are practically illegal, where everyone must be resgitered, and where we get geniuses like Barack Hussien Obama, and Richard Joesph Durbin. I just choose to error on the side of personal freedom.I am sorry if it offends you but you do not know much about guns or this topic, outside of the strawmen that you create from it. not everyone can know something about everything, there are many topics here i cannot comment on (like anything talking about the bible for example). it hard to keep up with make-believe ideas from make-believe land, LOLREEEEARRRRR! FUCK the queen

If you "have to"?Under what conceivable circumstances might you "have to" do that?

.Fine, but that has nothing to do with my point and examples, which again, were just to show that there are non-threatening reasons why someone may be in your house or on your property. Shooting without knowing the extent of their presence (and I am not claiming you said you would) is not the right course of action.That was my only point. But this was the "plan" you laid out. That's how this whole debate with you and I started. You never said anything about it being dependant on the situation, you said this was your plan of action. I was just curious as to why you would shoot when clearly your life wasn't in danger anymore. Fair enough, my bad then. A few reasons why. First, as I have shown, there can be many reasons why you may find someone in your house that did not break in, so shooting without knowing the extent of their presence is not the right course of action - you seem to have agreed with this.Second, your life isn't in danger in the scenario you drew out for us, so why shoot at this point?Third, is a breaking and entering charge, alone, worthy of deadly force?- Oni

I'm sorry dude but that "if I have too" at the end doesn't change the statement at all. Maybe I'm not reading it right, so explain how it does.If you aren't going to wait to see a gun, and are going to shoot 20 rounds at them, the "if you have too" at the end just means you'll determine when you will have to. But it doesn't erase the part about not waiting to see if they have a gun, which is the part I called you out on. I was generalizing and using your example for states that did have the Castle Doctrine. That's what I mean about not following the debate. I just used what you said as a general example, you'd know that if you followed what we were saying instead of butting in every now and again with nonsense. It doesn't mean I didn't own a gun, shotgun, 30-06, compound bow, and other hunting equip. when I used to hunt. I sold all that stuff and bought an Apple laptop. It was a very good sell/buy.I also was a Marine. I shot M-16, Saw, 50 cal., AT-4, 208 grenade launcher, etc. I used to be able to disassemble and assemble an M-16 in less than 2 minutes. I worked at the armory in Camp Geiger, NC. logging in dozens of foreign weapons. I've probably shot more weapons and handled more weapons than you (just guessing, maybe not) so I know my way around the stuff. But I know civilians suck with weapons and they can't handle stressful situations, which is why I don't think their ability to determine if somenoe is going to commit a felony is trust worthy.But who cares? I can read a law with or without a gun in my hand. Gross...fuck a princess. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I've gotta say that I usually only see this level of denial in raging-homophobes. But it's bloody obvious that you're suffering from a very strong case of closet anglo-philia - you just can't bear the idea that you'll never be Liz's bitch. To be honest, she wouldn't want a wanker like you anyway. That said, I am related (by marriage) to her favourite footman, so if you want to grovel at her feet for a while in the vain hope that she may just grant you a millisecond of notice, I can probably swing it. Let me know...

Under what circumstances would you "have to" fire 20 rounds?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I think that is what he has to do to get an erection.

If you were a blind and deaf retard? Well if queens are your thing, by all means, carry on. The Queen, on the other hand, is not to be fucked with.(abe)Sorry, I realize I am not adding much to the topic.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

i could miss alot, in the dark with a gun in my underwear, half asleep, firing 10 rounds, and a reload of ten more doesn't take more than about 8-12 seconds on the fast end. maybe there is a firefight, there are all sorts of reasons to reload. Maybe there are 5 or more people who broke in and they didn't run after i started firing, there are all sorts of reasons.although this debate made me change my mind, last night I loaded a 33 round detachable magazine, now I can fire 33 without reloading."If you were a blind and deaf retard? " lol yeah that too. I may only have to fire once, I may not have to fire at all, I may grab the mossberg 500 instead, and only have 3 shots. I have a 12 gauge pump, and a 9mm glock ready for home defense (technically the AK-47 is ready as well, but I only keep 5 rounds in that magazine), my statement was simply that I will use what I have to defend myself to the last bullet, and I have 20: 9mm ready, 3: 2/24inch 12 gauge shells, and 5: 7.62mmx39. um...ok you called me out on something, or whatever, i have no idea what you mean but if calling AE on something is what you want then ok. I don't have to wait to see if someone has a weapon, I don't even have to say word to them, if I catch them in my apartment one night. ROFLMFAO!ok...wowanytime you get me on anything on this site, wether calling me out or whatever, just remeber i was "just joking" and "generalizing", and acting like a tween (onifre style). that was probably the fuinniest shit i have read from you this whole thread. I don't know man, Macs are pretty fukin horrible; unless of course you are yuppie, who is easy to market things too. um...ok whatever you say there hefe. To me the British are just like the French, except because I don't speak/read French, I don't have to listen to/see thier bullshit. it is over here.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

If it's dark and you're half asleep, how do you know you "have to" shoot at all?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with any gun training or respect for firearms could write a line like this. These three sentence fragments really show what kind of mentality we are dealing with here.A gun in your underwear is good for one thing. Shooting your balls off.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It looks to me like you just don't like guns and don't like people having them.And the hypocrisy is hilarious - that the people who don't think like you do need pills and psychotherapy. What happened to tolerance? Now you want to change people. But there are situations that fit your above description that would not fit within the Castle Doctrine so your description cannot be wholly accurate.The most important part of the Castle Doctrine is allowing people to defend themselves in their homes. That you have to focus on extreme circumstances to find what might be one small problem says to me that there really isn't anything wrong with the law, but you just don't like it and are trying really hard to make it look bad. Its an out... so people can't get away with everything. I thought lots of laws have little clauses like that in them. We're not lawyers... we always have to turn to the court to interpret the laws and make sense out of the legalese. Take a look at a thread on gay marriage and how much reference to cases and judges decisions n'stuff... people usually don't know what they laws are saying.So no, its not. And apparently you don't want to allow home owners to defend themselves in their own homes without fear of being prosecuted for it.

Oh. Okay. Well, thanks for sharing your opinion. For me in my house, I think it is the right course of action. Not exactly. Granted, the plan did have some ambiguity. Where "deadly force" does not mean "intentional killing", yes. 10 yesses.