An American's right to bear arms was guaranteed by our second amendment because the founding fathers of the United States felt that the people of our country should have the freedom and the power to make the country however they saw fit. The civil war in the US wasn't about gun rights it was about taxes and money (oh and some would argue slavery). I disagree with your assessment that firearm ownership is not needed in this century.
I'm not sure if English is your first language but to "bear"is to carry, to "bare" is to show nude.
He should have been spending more time at the shooting range then he wouldnt be in the situation.
rule number 1 for any outlaw ... IF YOUR GOING TO DO IT ... DONT GET CAUGHT !
they where obviously too noob at robbing but thats the price u pay for doing illegal stuff in someone else house WHEN U KNOW the law allows them to shoot you on there property ...
personally i say good riddance ... if your stupid enough to wanna rob people in a country that legalizes the use of firearms at home for self defense then the world is better off without these 2 morons ...
now what he did to there bodies i disagree with but thats his own issue
Last edited by Divineknight13; 2012-11-27 at 08:14 AM.
Not reporting the incident afterwards and the bodies being found in a police search makes this less a rush of adrenaline and more borderlining "using self defence as an excuse."
If you've disabled someone and they're down on the floor, the exhale of adrenaline knowing you're safe floods out of you. This coming from someone who's had to use a cricket bat before now, I didn't feel the need to beat their head to a pulp afterwards. Reasonable force is taking the shot/swing, once they're disabled anything else stops being defence.
Ex-Mod. Technically retired, they just won't let me quit.
I don't see a problem with this law in general, people should have the right to use deadly force to defend their property and them selves in my opinion.
I definitely see a problem with what he did though, it wasn't defence of anything it was just murder. He should defintley not have the right to deliver a "finishing shot" as he put it. He shot both of them before he had killed them, that should have been enough to then call the police and an ambulance. I'm not sure of the exact law but I think it should also be illegal to not call an ambulance after legally shooting someone.
As a side note, what kind of person laughs at a gun jamming after they have already been shot and their cousin is lying dead near them. This seems like either made up bull shit or this man isn't all there and mistook some form of pain grimace for laughter.
Actually, the second amendment was about organized militias in a time when the founding fathers didn't want a standing army as they believed it would give too much power to the government. Even Captain Right Wing Supreme Court Justice Himself has admitted that if the founding fathers wanted everyone to be able to have whatever kind of weapon they wanted they could have been clearer.
First, Daily Mail is just awful. While it doesn't change the story sure, whats up with the LOOK AT THESE NICE PICTURES OF THE PERFECT STUDENTS, HOW COULD THEY GET SHOT LIKE THAT? While showing a blurred photo of the old man like he's some serial rapist/killer.
Second, it's the right charge, but I doubt he will get charged with 2nd degree. Most likely manslaughter.
Third, "star student"? Who the fuck laughs at a man with a gun. I mean shit, talk about stupidity. You had that one commin' to ya bud.
''If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again,'' Absolutely hilarious. While sad, that quote is gold.
Oh, and the old guy seems like a nice guy. He was reasonable on what happened, and told the complete truth that he probably shouldnt have shot the girl dead. Guess he was just fed up...
precisely, presented evidence. which would include a copy of the police report which may or may not have the same statements written in the article. this is my entire point, youve already passed judgement on this man without seeing anything other than one simple article.
Execution shots and 'hiding' were unnecessary. Should've shot them, made sure they were down, then immediately called the police. Don't most people have cellphones now a days?
As for shooting intruders who may or may not be unarmed, I agree completely with that. If someone broke into my home, they could be there to kill me. I have no idea to know whether or not they're armed, so I'm going to assume they are rather than shout, "I HAVE A GUN! DROP YOUR WEAPONS!" and let them spin around and shoot me first.