Texas Man Kills Home Intruder With His Own Gun

[strekship]

In California if you are in your home and someone breaks in, you have the right to use deadly force.

[zeroday]

Good for the family (Y)

Good for them.

You just gotta lay a finger on a burgular in the UK and thats it, they'll sue you, even if they have broken into your home and they are armed.

Yeah, it's bloody ridiculous.

[Minimoose]

The dog looks very gentle.

Mastiffs generally are, but they can be guard dogs, my friend used to have one and you really wouldn't want to get it annoyed.

[Sil3nt]

Got to love criminal rights. It is sad.

:laugh: gotta have one of those signs on my front door

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Good for them.

You just gotta lay a finger on a burgular in the UK and thats it, they'll sue you, even if they have broken into your home and they are armed.

Not if they are dead.

[Green_Eye]

Gun control is not the answer, its gun SAFETY. Everyone should own a gun, not only for hunting and fishing, but for protection against those whom impose their will and way of life on you that takes away your freedoms as a human. Thats why we have the 2nd amendment, so if the government or anyone else tries to take our freedoms, we can take their power.

2nd amendment is there so that WE THE PEOPLE can protect freedom from those who wish to do it harm.

This families choice turned out to be a good choice, but it could have ended worse. If they had owned a gun in the first place, they could have just shot the intruders instantly, not putting as many people in danger.

When more people are protected the right way, there will be less crime, as who would want to risk dieing for something so petty. A robber will think twice about robbing a bank if he knows everyone else will have a gun and defend themselves.

But in the end, it all comes down to proper safety. Not everyone should own a gun, just like not everyone should have a drivers license. Some things just arent for certain ppl.

:huh:

[Matrix XII]

Good for them. I couldn't believe what it would be like to be home when armed intruders are robbing and perhaps there to kill you.

[Julius Caro]

Second Amendment doesn't come into this.

If guns were not widely available, the crooks might not have got them, to be able to be shot when they were turned against them.

If they were able to get guns anyway, because they are crooks, the same thing would have happened anyway.

The homeowners did not use any guns that they own in this incident.

that's the reasoning IMO. people in the US shouldn't be allowed to have guns themselves. but since it is so easy to get a gun, this is the result. allowing all the population to have guns is also allowing the criminals to have guns. so there's no turning back.

Gun control is not the answer, its gun SAFETY. Everyone should own a gun, not only for hunting and fishing, but for protection against those whom impose their will and way of life on you that takes away your freedoms as a human. Thats why we have the 2nd amendment, so if the government or anyone else tries to take our freedoms, we can take their power.

2nd amendment is there so that WE THE PEOPLE can protect freedom from those who wish to do it harm.

This families choice turned out to be a good choice, but it could have ended worse. If they had owned a gun in the first place, they could have just shot the intruders instantly, not putting as many people in danger.

When more people are protected the right way, there will be less crime, as who would want to risk dieing for something so petty. A robber will think twice about robbing a bank if he knows everyone else will have a gun and defend themselves.

But in the end, it all comes down to proper safety. Not everyone should own a gun, just like not everyone should have a drivers license. Some things just arent for certain ppl.

THe problem is that a certain percentage of YOU THE PEOPLE end up being the ones firing the arms against innocents. If getting a gun in the US hadn't been as easy, the intruders might have not had a gun in the first place.

[Dc'1]

They deserved it :) smashing through a window isn't a very covert way into a robbery :p

[Richard Hammond]

Not if they are dead.

Yeah then you would go to jail for manslaughter/murder in the UK.

[spacer]

Good for the husband and wife. I would have done the same exact thing without hesitation. Even if I knew I was going to go to prison, there would be nothing to stop me if I knew my kids were in danger.

I'd rather be in prison and my family be alive than have THIS happen, any day of the week.

Edited September 8, 2008 by spacer

[Mouldy Punk]

Good for them.

You just gotta lay a finger on a burgular in the UK and thats it, they'll sue you, even if they have broken into your home and they are armed.

Actually, we are 'allowed' to kill burglars in the UK if you have to.

Source.

For those of you who can't be bothered to read the article;

House owners in the UK are allowed to use any force they deem necessary to protect themselves and their home in a burglary situation - including killing the burglar. You aren't, however, allowed to set traps or be seeking revenge - it very much has to be a heat-of-the-moment, fearing-for-your-own-life kind of thing.

[XerXis]

Good for the husband and wife. I would have done the same exact thing without hesitation. Even if I knew I was going to go to prison, there would be nothing to stop me if I knew my kids were in danger.

I'd rather be in prison and my family be alive than have THIS happen, any day of the week.

that's what astonishes me, i would never ever try to take away the gun from an armed robber while my children were in the house. just give them what they want, material goods you can replace (or they are insured anyway) but not your children.

[Frank]

that's the reasoning IMO. people in the US shouldn't be allowed to have guns themselves. but since it is so easy to get a gun, this is the result. allowing all the population to have guns is also allowing the criminals to have guns. so there's no turning back.

THe problem is that a certain percentage of YOU THE PEOPLE end up being the ones firing the arms against innocents. If getting a gun in the US hadn't been as easy, the intruders might have not had a gun in the first place.

I laugh whenever I see this argument. Drugs are illegal, but yet they are still obtainable. Taking away the right to bear arms only insures two things.

1. The criminals will be the only ones who have guns
   
2. The prices of guns will skyrocket.
   

[ApuBo]

good for them.

Got a rifle near my bed

(for defending, since my dad is a drug dealer.

and from 12 year old we can have own rifles "hunters only")

no need licence. just animal "killing" licence.

Greenland only :p

[Zab]

<snipped> Got OWNED!!! (Who charges a guy with a shotgun pointed at you?!?!

Edited September 9, 2008 by John S.
don't circumvent the swear filter