ExRx.net

For the purpose of this survey, self defence may include deadly force where neccessary to protect ones self or others from death or serous bodily injury.

However, actions taken after-the-fact either in vengence or to eliminate a potential threat are NOT self defence.

Strongly agree. Luckily, I'm living in a state with laws favoring the homeowners for home defense. I know some of the more liberal states don't, and actually heard of a robber suing a homeowner who shot him during a robbery attempt.
Tim

It's a basic right and it's in the constitution. The anti-gun people are always foaming at the mouth about it. But hysteria is what people go for when they have no evidence on their side and a mountain of it to the contrary.

Just when I got done debating with the right wingers, I'm now going to be debating with the left wingers. :)

I voted: Strongly Agree.

I'm not sure what else you're supposed to do in that situation, let them hurt you or someone you care about?

strongly agree.

I'm not mohat ma ghandi ok someone tries to strike me its going to be a lot harder then hitting someone who will let them. Also I'd protect my family to the same extent. Anyone threatens my family or myself I protect both.

I voted "Strongly agree" although, being in the military, I know that there are circumstances where self defense has to take a lower priority. For civilians, It's a basic right.

I'm currious what some of our international posters have to say on this one. I know the laws in other countries can be very different from here in the U.S.

Also, I've heard some people give the "That's what's the police are for" argument. Not surprisingly, they all live(d) in nice, quiet, suburban neighborhoods with low crime rates and low police response times. Likewise, none of them would acknowledge or accept the following arguments:

A.) In rural areas the closest police officer may be a considerable distance away. 20-30 minute response times are not unusual.
B.) In urban areas the high volume of incoming calls can overwhelm police leading to similarly long response times.
C.) In a real emergencey 5 minutes might as well be a lifetime.
D.) In some extreme cases the police may not respond at all. This was clearly illustrated durring the LA Riots and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

I voted strongly agree.
But the reaction depends, in the situation Matt Z described I'd say if the assaulter (does this word even exist?) got hurt very badly, dies or anything else=> human nature.
If you got robbed and you see the robber run away, while you have a gun (lethal ammunition) in your hand and you shoot him so he dies or is paralyzed permanently, that's not the same thing. The robber might have stolen a few (or a lot) valuable things but he might have done that for his kids who got no food,... In my opinion the robbed guy shouldn't have used his gun, to stop the robber. I don't know what I'd do in a situation like that.

I'm not a fan of guns when owned by civilians and certainly not when it is loaded with lethal ammo, but I'm not against knives or baseball bats for self-defence. I've got a knife ( the blade is 6"long, 1" wide if you want to know) in my cupboard next to my bed in case anybody robs/assaults me.

IRT Matt Z
In Belgium I don't really know the law but I think you have to be a member of a shooting club, got a license/certificate and you can't buy a lot of guns like you can in the USA.

I remembered something which happened a few years ago. A diamond-seller got robbed, but he killed the robber with a gunshot. I do not really know what the court said (right choice of words?), but I think he had to go to jail for a few months/years.

The way I look at it is this. Theft is a property crime. Robery is a crime of voilence. A robber may let you go unharmed if you cooperate, or he may shoot you in the face just for the hell of it. So if you get a good chance to take him out, with minimal risk, I say take it.

Meanwhile, someone who's desperate to feed his family can resort to shoplifting, burgulary, picking pockets, etc, none of which require sticking a gun in someones face.

Of course, once the robbey is over, the threat is over. Going after the guy or shooting him in the back while he's running away isn't self defence.

The same rules apply for break-ins. If I confront an intruder in my home and he bolts for the door, I'm not going to shoot him. Likewise, if he freezes like a deer in headlights, I'm not going to shoot, but if he draws a weapon or tries to rush me, I'm going to take him out.

By the way, I'm a big proponent of the Right-to-Carry movement. I'd like to see the creation of a Federal concealed carry permit. Ideally this would be granted on a shall-issue basis, meaning the governement cannot deny anyone who meets the stated requirements.

Gun laws is a different question than the right to self defense. Why don't you ask that one?

Wouter, you mentioned guns and specifically "lethal ammo". I could make the assumption that you are suggesting that non-lethal ammo is a better alternative but the most dangerous object is an unloaded weapon. 2 reasons, it might be loaded when you expect it to be unloaded or it will be unloaded when the other guy has his loaded.

There is a saying, the 2 loudest noises in the world are, a bang when you expect a click, and a click when you expect a bang.

"Gun laws is a different question than the right to self defense. Why don't you ask that one?" - stuward

For me, the right to self defence and the right to bear arms are closely connected. I don't see how someone can acknowledge that people have a right to defend themselves and then deny them the means to do so.

IRT Matt Z
I didn't knew any difference between a theft and a robbery,I thought they were synonyms. In my reply I used robbery as a violence of proprety where no gun or anything else is involved.

IRT Stuward
Yea, I meant that non-lethal ammunition would be better.