Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,976 
April 17th, 2006, 02:53 PM
Juan, I thought Caracal was blaming the victims also. If these little scum pots what a better life style get a job, an education, get off the drugs and the booze. Pull up your pants and take control of your lives, stop blaming everyone but themselves for their sad lives. I have no pity for them, zip, nada.
Personally, you enter my home with Criminal Intent and I'll go to hell and back before you take my "Stuff". I keep a cane at each of my doors entrance and I don't need them to walk! I have the urge to yell "Four" and I don't golf.
Juan, I thought Caracal was blaming the victims also. If these little scum pots what a better life style get a job, an education, get off the drugs and the booze. Pull up your pants and take control of your lives, stop blaming everyone but themselves for their sad lives. I have no pity for them, zip, nada.
Personally, you enter my home with Criminal Intent and I'll go to hell and back before you take my "Stuff". I keep a cane at each of my doors entrance and I don't need them to walk! I have the urge to yell "Four" and I don't golf.
Bright Spark
Posts: 435
Location: St. John's
Location: St. John's
April 17th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Arguing about how the society decides crime is pointless. People don't have the right to invade my home simply because MTV makes them want an iPod.
Should I have my home invaded, the thug will soon be wearing some Buckshot Bling, and I'll take the court time. Better tried by twelve than laid in the ground by six.
Laws that require a person to abandon their home and children when faced with danger are pretty troubling.
Quoting
Changing the society will stop home invasions, and will replace them with another sort of crime. Every society has it's own sort of crime ( capitalist= home invasions, religious=stoning, hand-chopping, whatever else Iran does)
No juan, I am not saying it is the victim's fault. It is the product of a materialistic society.
Arguing about how the society decides crime is pointless. People don't have the right to invade my home simply because MTV makes them want an iPod.
Should I have my home invaded, the thug will soon be wearing some Buckshot Bling, and I'll take the court time. Better tried by twelve than laid in the ground by six.
Laws that require a person to abandon their home and children when faced with danger are pretty troubling.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,202
April 17th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Personally I have nothing in my home that is worth more than "moi". If anyone was to enter my home, I would get the hell out. Yeah, it is grossly unfair to be robbed, and I have been robbed and mugged. But if I get out of it unharmed, then to hell with it. When you introduce weapons into the scenario, then you introduce the potential for being overpowered and having the weapons used on you. Weapons also increase the stress level of the perpertrator who could be on drugs or whatever, and who will act more aggressively if they feel cornered or personally threatened.
Yeah, its nice to act with a lot of bravado and statistics about who the home invaders usually are and who they like to hit, but basically, Im not going to hang around to help them add assault or murder to their crimes of theft.
Personally I have nothing in my home that is worth more than "moi". If anyone was to enter my home, I would get the hell out. Yeah, it is grossly unfair to be robbed, and I have been robbed and mugged. But if I get out of it unharmed, then to hell with it. When you introduce weapons into the scenario, then you introduce the potential for being overpowered and having the weapons used on you. Weapons also increase the stress level of the perpertrator who could be on drugs or whatever, and who will act more aggressively if they feel cornered or personally threatened.
Yeah, its nice to act with a lot of bravado and statistics about who the home invaders usually are and who they like to hit, but basically, Im not going to hang around to help them add assault or murder to their crimes of theft.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,976
April 17th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Can't fault you logic Fozzylogix, that is what the "Experts" tell us to do. I'm keeping my canes, at least it is a non-threatening item and the perps will think they have an advange over the cripple. Personally I have a house full of antques and theres not a prayer in hell they'd ever be able to lift any of this stuff.
Can't fault you logic Fozzylogix, that is what the "Experts" tell us to do. I'm keeping my canes, at least it is a non-threatening item and the perps will think they have an advange over the cripple. Personally I have a house full of antques and theres not a prayer in hell they'd ever be able to lift any of this stuff.
the clan of the claw
Posts: 1,976
April 17th, 2006, 05:17 PM
doryman,
you are confusing crimes with punishments.
true that society decides what is a crime and what is not. If we did not recognize private property there would be no property crimes!
However, stoning and hand removal are punishments created by societies, not crimes within those societies.
We need to value life about posession. It is in the excess and greed of the western world we are reduced to the most materialistic of existances.
doryman,
you are confusing crimes with punishments.
true that society decides what is a crime and what is not. If we did not recognize private property there would be no property crimes!
However, stoning and hand removal are punishments created by societies, not crimes within those societies.
We need to value life about posession. It is in the excess and greed of the western world we are reduced to the most materialistic of existances.
Chief Mogrifier
Posts: 8,885 
April 17th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Caracal wrote:
Caracal wrote:
Quote:
In a perfect world, you might be right, but right now we are governed by how hard we work and how much we can afford. Buying property is part of the society we live in. Indeed, part of our dream is to have a house of our own. If we didn't recognise private property, we'd be left with some sort of commune with common cooking pots and bathrooms. Thanks but no thanks.
true that society decides what is a crime and what is not. If we did not recognize private property there would be no property crimes!
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,748
April 17th, 2006, 08:31 PM
haha Cuddly Ugg (I like this hybird version the best - gonna stick with that now lollll)
you and I think alike - I always told my kids they didn't have to worry about the bad guys breakin in here 'cause they all just head one more block down to the rich folks' houses fer the really good stuff! It worked too.... well that, and I told them Batman only lived a block away.
haha Cuddly Ugg (I like this hybird version the best - gonna stick with that now lollll)
you and I think alike - I always told my kids they didn't have to worry about the bad guys breakin in here 'cause they all just head one more block down to the rich folks' houses fer the really good stuff! It worked too.... well that, and I told them Batman only lived a block away.
Member
Posts: 217
April 17th, 2006, 09:25 PM
I don't think anyone would break into my house because I have Boxer/Mastif cross, kinda like a pitbull. After I beat the crap out of the would be robbers, I'd take them into the middle of nowhere and leave them with no clothes or money and a little piece of paper that says," I'll be watching you, and next time you won't wake up out here."
I plan on getting my FAC sometime this year, and i'm going to buy a colt AR-14. Even with it locked up, I could easily have it out of the cabinet, get the trigger lock off, and have it loaded in less than a minute. I wouldn't shoot to kill either, as it's better to just shoot them in the leg. Try doing another home invasion from a wheel chair.
I don't think anyone would break into my house because I have Boxer/Mastif cross, kinda like a pitbull. After I beat the crap out of the would be robbers, I'd take them into the middle of nowhere and leave them with no clothes or money and a little piece of paper that says," I'll be watching you, and next time you won't wake up out here."
I plan on getting my FAC sometime this year, and i'm going to buy a colt AR-14. Even with it locked up, I could easily have it out of the cabinet, get the trigger lock off, and have it loaded in less than a minute. I wouldn't shoot to kill either, as it's better to just shoot them in the leg. Try doing another home invasion from a wheel chair.
Bright Spark
Posts: 435
Location: St. John's
Location: St. John's
April 18th, 2006, 08:30 AM
But that is simply not an option for any rational human. Anyone would become violent in order to protect their family from invading criminals, and the law should understand that.
Quoting
I agree that in many situations that is what one should do.. but what about situations where one has a wife or children in the house. To my understanding, under the present canadian laws, If I am confronted with a violent criminal in my living room, and the closest escape route is the window next to me, I am legally obligated to jump out that window. IF my children are in the next room, I am still supposed to jump out that window. Anything else is illegal and could be construed as assault, antagonizing the criminal, etc.
Personally I have nothing in my home that is worth more than "moi". If anyone was to enter my home, I would get the hell out. .
But that is simply not an option for any rational human. Anyone would become violent in order to protect their family from invading criminals, and the law should understand that.
Chief Mogrifier
Posts: 8,885
April 18th, 2006, 08:53 AM
With all the dispicable things
home invaders have done, cutting off a man's fingers off to force information about bank cards and valuables, slugging a woman ninety years old and shattering her jaw, raping a woman of a similar age in front of her husband, and brutal assaults on man and wife. These low lifes deserve more tha our courts seem inclined to give them. Any home invasion should start with an absolute minimum ten year sentence. THe home owner should be allowed any means at his disposal to protect himself , his family, and his property. If that means shooting the bastards, so be it. If I was on the jury, no home invasion victim would ever be convicted for protecting his home.
With all the dispicable things
home invaders have done, cutting off a man's fingers off to force information about bank cards and valuables, slugging a woman ninety years old and shattering her jaw, raping a woman of a similar age in front of her husband, and brutal assaults on man and wife. These low lifes deserve more tha our courts seem inclined to give them. Any home invasion should start with an absolute minimum ten year sentence. THe home owner should be allowed any means at his disposal to protect himself , his family, and his property. If that means shooting the bastards, so be it. If I was on the jury, no home invasion victim would ever be convicted for protecting his home.
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366
April 18th, 2006, 09:05 AM
It's defiantly part of the reason I vote conservative....I absolutely do not trust the life of my family in the "hands" of liberal leadership on these matters.
With all of this going on and the Liberals announce a ban on handguns? Give me a break!
It's defiantly part of the reason I vote conservative....I absolutely do not trust the life of my family in the "hands" of liberal leadership on these matters.
With all of this going on and the Liberals announce a ban on handguns? Give me a break!
Super Genius
Posts: 1,202
April 20th, 2006, 06:45 PM
And if you have a gun in the house with kids, what do you do with it? The statistics on accidental gun injuries and fatalities of kids is shocking. And sadly, having a gun in the house increases the risk of a successful suicide attempt in a teenager who is depressed.
Quoting
But that is simply not an option for any rational human. Anyone would become violent in order to protect their family from invading criminals, and the law should understand that.
Absolutely, one would do anything to protect ones children. But becoming aggressive may the worst thing for that. You dont want to get your children involved in crossfire, or taken as hostages. Best idea might be a house alarm that alerts you of an intruder, so hopefully one could round up the kids and move out fast- much as one would have to in a fire. There is no one answer to every criminal situation, but the majority of cases do appear to show that becoming aggressive yourself is likely to increase the aggression of the intruder. Most intruders do not want to get involved in a fight. Quoting
I agree that in many situations that is what one should do.. but what about situations where one has a wife or children in the house. To my understanding, under the present canadian laws, If I am confronted with a violent criminal in my living room, and the closest escape route is the window next to me, I am legally obligated to jump out that window. IF my children are in the next room, I am still supposed to jump out that window. Anything else is illegal and could be construed as assault, antagonizing the criminal, etc.
Personally I have nothing in my home that is worth more than "moi". If anyone was to enter my home, I would get the hell out. .
But that is simply not an option for any rational human. Anyone would become violent in order to protect their family from invading criminals, and the law should understand that.
And if you have a gun in the house with kids, what do you do with it? The statistics on accidental gun injuries and fatalities of kids is shocking. And sadly, having a gun in the house increases the risk of a successful suicide attempt in a teenager who is depressed.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,133
Location: Backwater, Ontario.
Location: Backwater, Ontario.
April 20th, 2006, 07:01 PM
[quote="Colpy"]This is something I know about.
The problem is not JUST the mandated storage laws for firearms. Even if you have a loaded gun in your hand, you can only use it IF
1.) you are in IMMEDIATE danger of death or greivous bodily harm.
2.) you have no option of retreat.} "
As well as the above, you have to "prove" that in court to the satisfaction of the judge and jury. Good luck with the life savings. The lawyers are going to get that, and you might still go to jail for defending yourself.
Even if you are not charged (and you probably will be), the scumbags' family can take you to civil court thereby relieving you of any money you have left.
Also, if you tell all your buddies or post on here that you would blow a home invader away, and the court supponeas your pals, and they can prove "predisposition", you is doin time.
Move to Texas.
[quote="Colpy"]This is something I know about.
The problem is not JUST the mandated storage laws for firearms. Even if you have a loaded gun in your hand, you can only use it IF
1.) you are in IMMEDIATE danger of death or greivous bodily harm.
2.) you have no option of retreat.} "
As well as the above, you have to "prove" that in court to the satisfaction of the judge and jury. Good luck with the life savings. The lawyers are going to get that, and you might still go to jail for defending yourself.
Even if you are not charged (and you probably will be), the scumbags' family can take you to civil court thereby relieving you of any money you have left.
Also, if you tell all your buddies or post on here that you would blow a home invader away, and the court supponeas your pals, and they can prove "predisposition", you is doin time.
Move to Texas.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,202
April 20th, 2006, 07:33 PM
Also, have you ever killed anyone? Even if you think you are completely justified, or feel completely threatened, do you really think there wont be a part of your conscience that regrets having to live with that action.. Do you want your kids to grow up with the image of their daddy shooting someone....very traumatic.
Also, have you ever killed anyone? Even if you think you are completely justified, or feel completely threatened, do you really think there wont be a part of your conscience that regrets having to live with that action.. Do you want your kids to grow up with the image of their daddy shooting someone....very traumatic.
