O Rly???
http://www.citycaucus.com/2009/09/police-response-times-are-an-unreliable-measurement
It takes you longer than 9 minutes to load a weapon?? You're doing it wrong.
Only if it is loaded.
You can have ammo in your home but what kind can depend on the hunting season. You are not permitted to have a weapon stored loaded (weapons must be locked up, ammo locked up in another container).. though that is a lesser crime than owning a hand gun. In theory one could load it when a burglar arrived but it would be quicker to call the police.
yeah police response times around my area are no where close to 1 min
and I call shens that yours are that quick.
You cant even get the dispatch call out in a minute.
Fair enough... I will never again doubt how ridiculous folks can be.. but there is no way the majority of people thought he was a hero.. Glen beck ins not a majority
Fair enough... I will never again doubt how ridiculous folks can be.. but there is no way the majority of people thought he was a hero.. Glen beck ins not a majority
I said quicker to call...O Rly???
http://www.citycaucus.com/2009/09/police-response-times-are-an-unreliable-measurement
It takes you longer than 9 minutes to load a weapon?? You're doing it wrong.
Jesus. I had no idea so many anandtechers were packing.
If it takes you longer to call 911 and cream that you are being robbed by some dude with a gun
Well, big difference between owning one, and carrying it. Lots of people have one in the house somewhere, but not as many keep one loaded and ready, or on them. Still, we do seem a bit skewed from the general statistics.
roughly 40% own one in America
roughly 5% carry one in America
I said quicker to call...
If it takes you longer to call 911 and cream that you are being robbed by some dude with a gun than to go to two separate locked cabinets you might need to learn how to use a phone. Time of response will vary on location of course.. Being on a military jurisdiction changes a lot of that, I have no doubt.
I'm still at a loss for how the criminal got a gun too, unless they are robbing me with a rifle, which might not be the best tool to use in clsoe quarters.. Even so, if a phone was not reliable as I could be dead before I called loading a locked up gun and ammo certainly isn't either.
I'm still at a loss for how the criminal got a gun too
I live in one of 2 states in the nation where our right to carry is denied to us.
Maybe the op can add ccw/cwp license holders to the poll. In for one. 2 if you count N.H. so that I can go into G.A.Well, big difference between owning one, and carrying it. Lots of people have one in the house somewhere, but not as many keep one loaded and ready, or on them. Still, we do seem a bit skewed from the general statistics.
roughly 40% own one in America
roughly 5% carry one in America
Except calling 911 does nothing to help you during those precious minutes. They still have to dispatch the call and you tap your foot waiting around for police to show up.
Maybe the op can add ccw/cwp license holders to the poll. In for one. 2 if you count N.H. so that I can go into G.A.
What is crazy here...
People implieng that if someone breaks into my home, I should flee. It is my home, and I will defend my family.
People saying that if someone breaks into their home, they will make some noise??? and that the person breaking in will flee?????
This is what I believe.
When I rack my shotgun, if they flee...they will not be shot in the back....if they turn towards me, they will never rob or harm anyone again.
Best home defense weapon, a shotgun. The sound of racking a round into the chamber is warning enough.
I wonder, do any of you own a fire extinguisher? If you do, why? Do you live every day of your life afraid of fire? Are the chances so small of fire that you do not own one? How much of your house do you think will burn while you get to your phone, call 911 (or emergency services) and the fire department gets there to put out the fire????
Anti gun laws only affect citizens, not criminals. In this world, it seems that more rights are given to criminals then the citizens.
No but state and federal prosecuters do. If you shoot someone and/or kill them, it better have been because you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or loss of life (or the defense of another from the same).
You'll be in deep water if you shoot someone running out of your house with a TV, even with a castle doctrine, but the law says you can stop them from leaving with your property with reasonable physical force, then escalate to deadly force when they confront you and become a threat.
Almost every castle doctrine law stil requires that the person was a threat and that the action was justfied under the normal use for force laws. Castle doctrine does not give a licence to unconditionally shoot or kill someone for being in your house. It only gives you legal immunity if you do end up shooting or killing someone in your house for a valid reason as defined by the regular laws regarding use of force.
lol, I'm not talking about suing, no court would hear a suit.. But in Canada you'd be up on second degree murder charges and face life in prison for that...
Thanks for pointing out the castle law and whatnot nkgreen. That is crazy.. lol. I really thought the Simpsons where Wiggum told Homer that "once they are in your house whatever you do is nice and legal.. it doesn't work if you invite them" was just the Simpson's being a cartoon..
Oh man.. that is so totally insane.
I'm not sure why one would 'want' to kill someone for taking their TV... but whatever. I've yet to meet a criminal that was able to put up more resistance than a squirrel and not run off at a relatively loud noise.
You should read more than the first paragraph. Castle doctrine is merely unconditional legal immunity from what must already be a lawful use of deadly force in self defense, which means that the defense must still fall under justified use of deadly force laws requiring an imminent threat of injury or bodily harm. You cannot be defended by castle doctrine if you just shoot someone without a threat.
Of course if they are not initially a threat, and in the course of making them identify themselves, leave, or put your property down, they decide to become a threat, at that point it escalates to reasonable use of deadly force.
I'd suggest anyone intent on defending their property with lethal force who doesn't understand what castle doctrine is to review their states laws before ending up being worse off than losing $100 worth of property.
Just remember, the US is a country where a guy shot two people robbing his neighbors house in the back, and was heralded as a hero. Of course, that was Texas, and they are a bunch of simpletons who really get off on the idea of killing people for any reason.
[Citation needed]
Just remember, the US is a country where a guy shot two people robbing his neighbors house in the back, and was heralded as a hero. Of course, that was Texas, and they are a bunch of simpletons who really get off on the idea of killing people for any reason.
Well, big difference between owning one, and carrying it. Lots of people have one in the house somewhere, but not as many keep one loaded and ready, or on them. Still, we do seem a bit skewed from the general statistics.
roughly 40% own one in America
roughly 5% carry one in America