Should you be able to shoot a tresspasser?

[Super Ganny]

Why, back in the 1940's, it was acceptable, so why not anymore? I believe in the right to self defence, personally. I say, give them one warning, then shoot 'em between the eyes. Of course, I don't because I don't want to rot in Prison, but they should let us do what is necessary.

You never know if they'll rob you or something.

Your thoughts?

[Beh]

You should not be allowed to murder trespassers, but if they refuse to leave and unarmed combat doesn't work, you should be allowed to make a non-lethal shot, afterwhich you call paramedics immediately.

[hisak]

But if you shoot a trespasser, are they allowed to shoot back in self defense?

[Shin Illuminated]

No, they are allowed to sue you for all your money.

[Bidet to you sir]

I like how the first step after telling them to leave and them refusing is for you to either shoot them or beat them up.
Ever hear of the police people?

[darkscar888]

In my state New Mexico which is the state west of Texas you can only shoot someone if they are in your house. But if you have a sign on your fence line that warns trespassers and they take even a step into your property you can shoot them.


I don't disagree with it at all I believe someone has a right to protect them self, their family, and their property. But I think they should have enough common sense to see what they are shooting at before they pull the trigger or to warn them.

I like how the first step after telling them to leave and them refusing is for you to either shoot them or beat them up.
Ever hear of the police people?

The police can't stop you on your own property. It's the law. Plus if your in danger it takes forever for them to even reach your house. By then they have either damged or stolen property or harmed your family

[Bidet to you sir]

In my state New Mexico which is the state west of Texas you can only shoot someone if they are in your house. But if you have a sign on your fence line that warns trespassers and they take even a step into your property you can shoot them.


I don't disagree with it at all I believe someone has a right to protect them self, their family, and their property. But I think they should have enough common sense to see what they are shooting at before they pull the trigger or to warn them.

I like how the first step after telling them to leave and them refusing is for you to either shoot them or beat them up.
Ever hear of the police people?

The police can't stop you on your own property. It's the law. Plus if your in danger it takes forever for them to even reach your house. By then they have either damged or stolen property or harmed your family

This hypothetical scenario never mentioned that the tresspasser was trying to break in or even steal your stuff, People have walked into my garden before and simply sat down and stayed there while they wait for someone, I've told them to get lost and they have.
Bue yes, if someone is clearly causing harm and is either threatenning violence or is robbing you, yes you should be able to defend your property and make a citizens arrest.
I don't agree with simply shooting someone though especially if you're shooting them to kill.
But then again, I live in a country with incredibly low gun crime and it's also illegal to own a gun except with a hunting license etc. And those aren't obviously easy to get.

Also if this ends up as a gun control debate, and someone mentions that gun crime is low in England due to there being no guns, gun ownership rates have nothing to do with gun crime, Canadians own a large amount of guns just like Americans and have much less crime involving firearms.
For example per 100 people
90 guns per 100 in America compared to 30 in Canada (still well above average)
now you'd then expect somewhere around 3X more crimes involving guns in America to Canada, however the firearm homicide rate, is 3.72 deaths per 100,000 in the US compared to Canada which is 0.76.
Now thats much more than 3X and well, Canada isn't even the best example.
Also bear in mind it's much more common in the US for people to have more than 1 gun, clearly the case where every single adult male in switzerland is supposed to own a gun, but the gun ownership rate is much less. In fact for switzerland it makes sense, 46% of residents own a gun, thats pretty close to what the number of adult males is. the gun ownership rate in the US is impossible per resident as you would need children to own their own guns, the gun ownership is 90 guns per 100 people remember.
So I think with that in mind we can clearly state that gun ownership rate does not exactly correlate to gun crime rates.

Just for even more clarification:

In raw figures, there were 11540 deaths in the US due to firearms and 256 deaths in Canada, there are approximately 10X more people in the US to Canada.

I've made this a slight gun control debate now, but think of this, every adult male in switzerland HAS to own a gun yet the gun crime rate is lower, as well as the gun ownership rate.

[Geneaux486]

I'd say if you want to defend your property with a firearm, you need to pass some sort of test to prove that you're capable of using it responsibly.  Otherwise, this happens:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519631,00.html

I say, give them one warning, then shoot 'em between the eyes.

A gun should be a very last resort, not a second resort.  You certainly wouldn't need one for someone who's unarmed, either.

[Bidet to you sir]

I don't want to sound like I'm judging, but yes, I agree with NH, it seems incredibly strange how easy it is to get a gun and be allowed to use it in the US, I know you have the right to bear arms etc, it doesn't give you the right to own any type of gun.
A rifle is a perfectly acceptable gun to own, you can hunt with it.
But the only reason to own a pistol is for shooting targets (at which point I think in reality it makes more sense to have them for rental only), or for shooting another human being, and well, I personally think only certain people should be allowed to do that.
A test in my mind is not the answer, I know people dislike the idea of gun control in the US, but honestly some types of guns have no other use but to kill people,

[Geneaux486]

Actually some hunters do use pistols.  Down here, at least.

I don't want to sound like I'm judging, but yes, I agree with NH

I sound like I'm judging?

[Bidet to you sir]

Actually some hunters do use pistols.  Down here, at least.

I don't want to sound like I'm judging, but yes, I agree with NH

I sound like I'm judging?

1st point, sorry I should have been more exact, I mean like semi automatics and stuff, plus, I think you still need a hunting licence to do that.
And no I meant me, as in english guy going "tut tut tut, we don't have guns in myyyyyy country".

[Geneaux486]

I think you still need a hunting licence to do that.

Yeah, you need a hunting license to do just about anything.  And the course you need to take to get one is a boring pain in the ass.

"tut tut tut, we don't have guns in myyyyyy country".

I would have totally responded to that with "That's 'cause you're a cominist fool, Rumble Red."

[darkscar888]

But the only reason to own a pistol is for shooting targets (at which point I think in reality it makes more sense to have them for rental only).

  Your foreign talk confuses me. 

[Bidet to you sir]

But the only reason to own a pistol is for shooting targets (at which point I think in reality it makes more sense to have them for rental only).

  Your foreign talk confuses me. 

It's fairly simple, a pistol doesn't have a large amount of uses other than for killing people or target shooting, it's much less common to use them for hunting.
Shooting people isn't something I agree people have a right to do.
And well a gun with little use has no reason to be owned by a person.
Why own a gun for shooting targets at a firing range, why not have a gun at the range that you simply take out when you want to shoot?
That way your gun is secure so you don't do something stupid.

[Beh]

Yeah, you need a hunting license to do just about anything.

Not really. Well, it depends on your state. During hunting season I could go out on my father's property (or anyone's property really, as long as I have permission. Most people will be cool and let you go through as long as there aren't too many people already there.) and get a buck with no hinderance. During the proper season I could get a buck within an hour or so of deciding I want one.

[Bidet to you sir]

This seems problematic, I always assumed a hunting licence was given out sparingly for population control reasons, if people can simply go out with a gun no questions asked and kill something and it goes on for too long you could end up with some problems with the ecosystem.

[darkscar888]

It's fairly simple, a pistol doesn't have a large amount of uses other than for killing people or target shooting, it's much less common to use them for hunting.
Shooting people isn't something I agree people have a right to do.
And well a gun with little use has no reason to be owned by a person.
Why own a gun for shooting targets at a firing range, why not have a gun at the range that you simply take out when you want to shoot?
That way your gun is secure so you don't do something stupid.

They could be using the pistol for small game.

[Geneaux486]

Yeah, you need a hunting license to do just about anything.

Not really.

*opens mouth to rebutt*

Well, it depends on your state.

*closes mouth and nods*

I always assumed a hunting licence was given out sparingly for population control reasons, if people can simply go out with a gun no questions asked and kill something and it goes on for too long you could end up with some problems with the ecosystem.

It's not that simple in LA, at least, and I doubt it's that simple in other states.  See, there are only certain kinds of animals you can hunt and only during certain seasons, and even then, there's a limit to the number of that particular animal you can shoot, and there are designated areas where you can hunt, and areas where you can never hunt, etc.  Breaking those rules results in some pretty hefty fines and/or jail time.

[Bidet to you sir]

Yeah, you need a hunting license to do just about anything.

Not really.

*opens mouth to rebutt*

Well, it depends on your state.

*closes mouth and nods*

I always assumed a hunting licence was given out sparingly for population control reasons, if people can simply go out with a gun no questions asked and kill something and it goes on for too long you could end up with some problems with the ecosystem.

It's not that simple in LA, at least, and I doubt it's that simple in other states.  See, there are only certain kinds of animals you can hunt and only during certain seasons, and even then, there's a limit to the number of that particular animal you can shoot, and there are designated areas where you can hunt, and areas where you can never hunt, etc.  Breaking those rules results in some pretty hefty fines and/or jail time.

Umm that was my point exactly, although less specific (I've never hunted anything), You're only alloed to kill in some places and only allowed to kill a certain animal and only a certain number of times, thats clearly so that the population is kept in order, the very reason why they're even hunted in reality, hunting keeps a population down.
What my problem was with Beh who said he could go out and kill without a licence, that at least to me could lead to population problems for a species, and well one dramatic change for say deer will effect the species growth of other animals, you'd likely get less predators for those animals and an increase in small herbivores which take up the food that the deers are no longer eating and also breed more due to less predators.

It wasn't common but while fox hunting was still legal (it is still legal actually, just not by chasing them with bloodthirsty dogs and then rubbing the fox blood on your face for fun.) you'd get isolated cases in some rural areas where people would have more than the desginated number of hunts they were supposed to have.
And well then you'd get loads of mice and rabbits, especially rabbits.
And well a lot more rabbits is going to seriously screw up a farming community much more than any fox would do from killing your chickens.

[Deku]

Well, hypothetically it could pose problems for the ecosystem, but wildlife management has done a good job (perhaps too good) controlling the population of certain animals in the US.  The white-tailed deer population, for instance, is at an all time high and is a continually on the rise (from 500,000 in the early 1900s to 15 million presently).*  Although it is a wildlife conservation success story, they are now causing a lot of economic damage precisely because the deer population was controlled so well.  I think hunting deer during the appropriate season while observing the proper restrictions is therefore greatly welcomed in most Northeast, midwest, and western states.  I know it is in my state.  And it isn't quite as easy for people to hunt in my state as it appears to be in Beh's, at least not without severe penalties.  

*source: http://wildlifecontrol.info/pubs/Documents/Deer/Deer_factsheet.pdf

Nevertheless, I think guns are warranted for hunting but not for shooting other people simply because they trespass.  Of course, we probably need to define what is meant by "trespassing," if it's somebody walking on my lawn then no.  If it's somebody threatening to steal property and or harm you and others in the house, then people have the right to defend their property, but that doesn't necessarily mean shoot to kill.