Should you be able to shoot a tresspasser?

[ashiin]

I meant a practical use, not a hobby.

I don't see how target shooting as a hobby is impractical. 

Well ya know what I mean, banning people from owning knives would be silly as you simply couldn't function without them.
A gun is either for hurting someting, through hunting (should be regulated), protecting yourself (should be regulated) or target shooting (then why do you need to own the gun, have a rental system?)

Some people prefer to bring their own gun. Their own favorite gun > the ones they can rent.

[Witless]

I meant a practical use, not a hobby.

I don't see how target shooting as a hobby is impractical. 

Well ya know what I mean, banning people from owning knives would be silly as you simply couldn't function without them.
A gun is either for hurting someting, through hunting (should be regulated), protecting yourself (should be regulated) or target shooting (then why do you need to own the gun, have a rental system?)

Some people prefer to bring their own gun. Their own favorite gun > the ones they can rent.

But that's the point he's trying to make. Why do you need to have your own gun if you're just target shooting?
A colt .45 is the same as a rented colt .45.

Owning a gun is unneccesary as you can protect yourself with other means.

[Bidet to you sir]

On top of that you could still "own" the gun, it could be your gun being kept at the shooting range.
You simply pay to shoot the targets and they get your gun out for you.
That way stupid people can still shoot stuff without the danger of them shooting someone.

[skull kid]

warn them and if they dont care dont shoot him make him suffer

[Bidet to you sir]

Yeah.....ummmm good response there kid.
You're a prime example of those that shouldn't be allowed guns.

[Geneaux486]

Owning a gun is unneccesary as you can protect yourself with other means.

I can see where living in some places would make it a necessity, and in other places, while it may not be a necessity, it's not impractical either. 

On top of that you could still "own" the gun, it could be your gun being kept at the shooting range.

But if they have the gun with them, they can shoot targets on their own property without having to pay extra.  Heck, that's how I learned to shoot. 

warn them and if they dont care dont shoot him make him suffer

Don't shoot him but make him suffer?  There wouldn't really be any question as to whether or not that constituted self defense in the eyes of a jury. 

[Deku]

warn them and if they dont care dont shoot him make him suffer

Don't shoot him but make him suffer?  There wouldn't really be any question as to whether or not that constituted self defense in the eyes of a jury. 

Maybe Skull Kid thinks, instead of shooting them, we should make them suffer by humiliating them through laughter and ridicule.  Not even criminals can withstand cruel sarcasm.

[Bidet to you sir]

There are other weapons, seeing as he's 11 (and banned now btw), he was probably doing the childish thing and not thinking that even criminals have some rights.
So yeah I think he was talking about torture.
Anyway, Gene from what I've gathered you're responsible with a weapon.
However I think by the system I mentioned you could lower the numbers of irresponsible people who own guns "only for target shooting" who then proceed to either show off, act paranoid (I remember a certain post by a certain batshit insane ex-soldier called sunrie who pulled out his "securely locked" gun due to hearing a tree branch hitting his door). (Oh he also failed to realise that it could have been a family member coming to surprise him, especially as it was the middle of the day.)
Some people even if they know how to handle a gun aren't responsible enough to have a gun within easy access.
I think allowing these people to use guns under very controlled circumstances is a happy medium

[Deku]

Since privately owned guns do actually defend people against criminals, I don't understand why we should stop self-defense by the majority of law-abiding citizens simply because of the minority of the populace that would harm others or themselves.  While I loathe the potential danger guns can cause others, I think that the tightening of gun laws in America would just make people less safe. 

Laws against gun ownership don't disarm criminals, just their victims, thus making armed crime easier.  One example being the Hungerford Massacre (1987) where one can argue that the outcome could have been different if the citizenry had been armed (especially seeing that it took hours for armed officers to arrive at the scene).*

Many Americans - particularly those who support the constitutional right to bear arms - are reluctant to leave the upholding of the law exclusively to the police (as they have done in Britain) simply because they believe it is the duty of the people to preserve the law in tandem with the police.  While some people may be working against that idea, many Americans are leery of trusting the government with issues such as gun ownership rights.

*sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4075055.stm

[Bidet to you sir]

The thing is in a strange twist, I have to agree, to some extent you're right, a gun is the best form of defense, however if you refer back to an earlier post, it's clear that culturally Americans (not all obviously) are more likely to use them for some element of crime.
The average amount of guns per 100 households is 90 guns in 100 households, that means you have the highest gun ownership rate in the world. (this is likely caused by households containing more than 1 gun)
You also have the highest gun murder rate in the world.
Now as I pointed out it doesn't even relate to the gun ownership rate, there are less homicides in switzerland for example where in reality the true highest gun ownership is, as every man is required by law to own a gun, as stated previously Americas gun ownership is high due to households owning more than 1 gun.
How can a country with every man having a gun have a lower homicide rate?
It's obvious, the culture of the country and the training.
That gun is given to them as they are a member of the military, yes every last man is a member of the military, they are all trained to use the gun, and they have strict licenses on how many guns you can own.
This I think is the main thing, a person who wants to buy a gun should be made to train with a gun.
And I mean really train, I don't mean going hunting, I mean serious military training, you want the right to defend yourself with a weapon? You should be trained to defend yourself with a weapon.
And well even then we get psychos like sunrie.
But well, you can't win them all.

Also I've been looking into the second ammendment, and well seeing as Bear arms in the time of writing meant military service and also often mentions a militia, I'm really not sure why you guys don't have the swiss system, as far as I can tell the second ammendment basically supports a federal militia made of military trained individuals keeping guns for the sake of using them in the defense of the country.



?

[Deku]

That gun is given to them as they are a member of the military, yes every last man is a member of the military, they are all trained to use the gun, and they have strict licenses on how many guns you can own.
This I think is the main thing, a person who wants to buy a gun should be made to train with a gun.
And I mean really train, I don't mean going hunting, I mean serious military training, you want the right to defend yourself with a weapon? You should be trained to defend yourself with a weapon.
And well even then we get psychos like sunrie.
But well, you can't win them all.

I don't think that's a bad idea, in fact, I admire Switzerland's system as it pertains to gun ownership.  Perhaps it wouldn't mean actually enlisting as a member of the military, but maybe a toned-down military training in armed weapons would suffice for those who wished to own them.  I think that could work.

Also I've been looking into the second ammendment, and well seeing as Bear arms in the time of writing meant military service and also often mentions a militia, I'm really not sure why you guys don't have the swiss system, as far as I can tell the second ammendment basically supports a federal militia made of military trained individuals keeping guns for the sake of using them in the defense of the country.

I imagine it was because most men who fought in the Revolutionary War were not well trained, despite being a part of a militia.  Voluntary militiamen were expected to jump into the fight, as it were, pre-equipped with weapons without much warning (if any at all).  Seeing as these men were commoners who probably wouldn't make a career out of military service, they were just expected to serve at a moment's notice.  But as you say, I don't know why it didn't develop later into a system that resembled the Swiss.



 

[Bidet to you sir]

I think maybe a course like being taught to drive, A car can kill people so we train them to drive responsibly with the intention that they never will.
I think it's hardly unfair to expect atleast the same level of limitations to gun ownership seeing as it's an item that is actually designed to kill.
I don't neccassarily support a swiss system as I don't support forcing people to be members of a militia, some people object to killing outright, others see it as an infringement on their rights seeing as all 18+ men are required to train for a year (I think it's a year anyway).
But is a voluntary system too much to ask?

[Adam]

But that's the point he's trying to make. Why do you need to have your own gun if you're just target shooting?
A colt .45 is the same as a rented colt .45.

I'm pretty sure any serious gun owner would disagree.  It's the same thing as with any hobby.  As a skiier, I know I keep my skis in a much better condition than anything I could rent at most resorts (and hey, most resorts don't rent out center-mounted twin tips anyways).  Any fencer will say they'd much rather use their own foil to a rented or borrowed one, on account of slight differences in weight, balance, and grip.  Similarly, I'm not a gun-type person myself, but I'd imagine to many people, a good chunk of owning a gun as a hobby is the whole maintenance aspect.

On top of that you could still "own" the gun, it could be your gun being kept at the shooting range.

But people will still want to take their guns off the shooting range to do things like hunting.  And if the system allows for that, then there really isn't much to prevent people from carrying out premeditated crimes with their guns.  The system could maybe prevent some crimes of passion, though?

And well even then we get psychos like sunrie.

Man, the dude hasn't been here for years.  And to be fair, he may have been kinda extreme and paranoid, but even then, due to the fact that he did have that sort of training, I'd imagine he'd have a must less chance of accidentally killing an innocent person than other people without such training. 

[Bidet to you sir]

But that's the point he's trying to make. Why do you need to have your own gun if you're just target shooting?
A colt .45 is the same as a rented colt .45.

I'm pretty sure any serious gun owner would disagree.  It's the same thing as with any hobby.  As a skiier, I know I keep my skis in a much better condition than anything I could rent at most resorts (and hey, most resorts don't rent out center-mounted twin tips anyways).  Any fencer will say they'd much rather use their own foil to a rented or borrowed one, on account of slight differences in weight, balance, and grip.  Similarly, I'm not a gun-type person myself, but I'd imagine to many people, a good chunk of owning a gun as a hobby is the whole maintenance aspect.

On top of that you could still "own" the gun, it could be your gun being kept at the shooting range.

But people will still want to take their guns off the shooting range to do things like hunting.  And if the system allows for that, then there really isn't much to prevent people from carrying out premeditated crimes with their guns.  The system could maybe prevent some crimes of passion, though?

And well even then we get psychos like sunrie.

Man, the dude hasn't been here for years.  And to be fair, he may have been kinda extreme and paranoid, but even then, due to the fact that he did have that sort of training, I'd imagine he'd have a must less chance of accidentally killing an innocent person than other people without such training. 

You miss my point, the people who own guns at the target range, are people without a licence to hunt, people with a licence to hunt/use a gun outside of a range, would need training, and be considerred capable to own a gun in private.
Thats the point, it basically means those who want to own guns can own guns, and are allowed to use them, but those who want to hunt with them or use them for protection have to earn the right.
It's like letting people drive a car on their own land, but you need a licence to drive on the roads.
Albeit a little different, because in this case you're allowed to use a gun in public, but not keep it in private without proper licencing.

[Deku]

Alas!  Another reason for more stringent gun control in the states:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/05/pennsylvania.gym.shooting/index.html

[Assault on Mind]

I think people should be allowed to own their own guns but they do need training and maybe a psyche evaluation. My dad owns some guns I think two of them are broken and the rifle has no ammo, in fact the only weapon that we have ammo for in the house is a pistol from WWII and that is kept somewhere where only he knows about. My dad kept the pistol for self defense because he was a paramedic and he frequented the slums, and he never shot anyone.

But to answer the original question, you should only be able to shoot someone if you can determine that they are a threat to you or your family and even then you should probably go for just injuring them. The police, while I respect them, are going to take to long to get to if they are in your house. Also if you want to accurately determine if the trespasser is a threat you should follow these simple rules:
1. Is he holding any weapon in his hand?
2. Is making any threatening gestures?
3. Is the person in question facing you?

See thats easy to follow.