• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do people have the right to....

Do people have the right to defend themselves in their own home with a gun?

  • Total voters
    54
all these people who say they value life all want to kill someone and they want to place other humans into a situation where they can justify the removal of another persons life

I truly wonder if some of you have even examined how you would live with the removing of life from another human being....I don't just mean in a cartoon character kind of way but in a real moral and philosophical way...

the blood lust puzzles me...it's like the world is black and white...right and wrong...no grey and everything is EXTREME for you

anyhow...it's interesting to watch, but I am glad you aren't my neighbours....just like you are glad you aren't mine and likely would have no problem executing me for my left leaning belief system...I truly think someone of the right on here would gladly remove people who are different from them with little to no thought or emotion

it makes me wonder how people get that way
 
_Sal said:
all these people who say they value life all want to kill someone and they want to place other humans into a situation where they can justify the removal of another persons life

I truly wonder if some of you have even examined how you would live with the removing of life from another human being....I don't just mean in a cartoon character kind of way but in a real moral and philosophical way...

the blood lust puzzles me...it's like the world is black and white...right and wrong...no grey and everything is EXTREME for you

anyhow...it's interesting to watch, but I am glad you aren't my neighbours....just like you are glad you aren't mine and likely would have no problem executing me for my left leaning belief system...I truly think someone of the right on here would gladly remove people who are different from them with little to no thought or emotion

it makes me wonder how people get that way
Click to expand...

If it comes down to harm to me or those I love, I got that way via a strong sense of justice and witness to the virtues of good over evil. The intentions of somebody to do violence to another can never trump the right of any of us to defend ourselves, our loved ones, or anybody unable to defend themselves from that kind of violence. I honestly wonder how people get to the point they are more concerned for those doing violence than they are concerned for the victims of that violence?
 
While I voted "yes," I have to echo _Sal's sentiments. It's a horrible thing to kill another human being, even if it's a situation where it's you or them, and they're forcing it on you. And of course, certain commonsense rules apply. What if a five-year-old is confused and wanders into your house through a door you forgot to lock--do you have the right to shoot him? I think not. But if it's a matter of someone breaking into your home and threatening your life or the lives of anyone else living there, and you must shoot to protect yourself or others, then yes, you have that right.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Break into my house with or without a weapon, and I promise you that you will be looking down the barrel of the judge, jury, and executioner. If you didn't enter with a weapon, there will be one by your side before the police get there.
Click to expand...

An if the intruder had no weapon I would hope that you would spend the rest of your years rotting in a cell.
 
Russell797 said:
An if the intruder had no weapon I would hope that you would spend the rest of your years rotting in a cell.
Click to expand...

Not having a weapon =/= not having the ability to kill someone. The intruder could use their bare hands. I will never understand why people think that just because someone is unarmed that they cannot be deadly.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I can't agree. The question is whether any of us should be able to defend ourselves in our own home with a gun. And if that is the weapon we choose to use--in some circumstances it could be the ONLY logical weapon we could use--there should be no question that we have every right to use it whether we are talking hand gun, shot gun, deer rifle, or cannon..
Click to expand...
The point is that were you have a right to defend yourself, you have that right regardless of whether you choose to use (or only have available) a firearm or you choose to use (or only have available) any other kind of weapon.

There are questions of in what circumstances it legally and/or morally acceptable to use force (such as the distinction between threats to life and threats to property discussed above or real-world cases involving criminals being attacked when fleeing or having left the property) and there are similar questions about the level of force (enough to stop the crime, detain the suspect or deliberately injuring/killing them as “punishment”). None of this is automatically or exclusively relevant to the use of firearms though.

There are a related set of questions that are firearm specific (especially in places like the US where they’re common), including questions like the ones the OP raised about legal requirements for safe and secure storage of firearms restricting their effective availability for home defence. They’re perfectly valid to ask but the answers to those questions won’t be determining anything about whether you have a fundamental right to defend yourself in your home.
 
HonestJoe said:
The location and weapon are largely moot in relation to that core question; (when and how) do you have the right to defend yourself? You have the right to defend yourself in someone else’s home, at work or on the street and you have the right to defend yourself with your fists, a tyre iron or a knife. What you actually do is more significant than where you are and what you do with it.

The definition of “defend yourself” and the massive range of circumstances and conditions where the question could come up is where the complexity really is. The focus on guns (and to an extent, our homes) actually seem to pose something of a distraction to that in the US.

The question you’re actually answering is about the balance between safety and security in how guns are stored and handled compared to their availability and ease of use in the event that they’re needed in an emergency. I think the key word there is balance (as it so often is) given that there are obviously risks and disadvantages inherent in either extreme.
Click to expand...

Nope, I said was what I meant and meant what I said. The laws that Heller struck down were laws indicating that people do not have the Right to defend themselves with a gun.

And usually when a persons asks if people have a right to defend themselves with a gun they're talking about deadly situations where their lives are in danger. I know people like to think that gun advocates are all bloodthirsty and what not but in point of fact they're not. They simply want to be able to defend themselves in a deadly situation and shoot at pieces of paper or hunt for food. All these posts in this thread talking about "what if some kid wanders into your house lost!" or "what if some Alzheimer's patient walks into your house!" are nothing more than an appeals to emotion which is a fallacy. No one is going to shoot some little kid and no one wants to shoot an Alzheimer's patient (though they can be violent and deadly also).
 
I claim that right and I don't require the assent of others.
 
ashurbanipal said:
While I voted "yes," I have to echo _Sal's sentiments. It's a horrible thing to kill another human being, even if it's a situation where it's you or them, and they're forcing it on you. And of course, certain commonsense rules apply. What if a five-year-old is confused and wanders into your house through a door you forgot to lock--do you have the right to shoot him? I think not. But if it's a matter of someone breaking into your home and threatening your life or the lives of anyone else living there, and you must shoot to protect yourself or others, then yes, you have that right.
Click to expand...

Will that five year old present a threat to my person or anyone I love? Of course not. I agree that taking or even putting another life at minor risk is a grave and terrible responsibility and I can only imagine how I would feel should I have to shoot somebody--I have friends and relatives who are police officers who are also haunted by that possibility. But when it comes down to defending myself or anybody else who is being threatened with severe bodily harm, rape or worse, I would hope that I would have the courage to protect the innocent.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If it comes down to harm to me or those I love, I got that way via a strong sense of justice and witness to the virtues of good over evil. The intentions of somebody to do violence to another can never trump the right of any of us to defend ourselves, our loved ones, or anybody unable to defend themselves from that kind of violence. I honestly wonder how people get to the point they are more concerned for those doing violence than they are concerned for the victims of that violence?
Click to expand...
another exxxxxxxxxxxxtreme thought
 
HonestJoe said:
The point is that were you have a right to defend yourself, you have that right regardless of whether you choose to use (or only have available) a firearm or you choose to use (or only have available) any other kind of weapon.

There are questions of in what circumstances it legally and/or morally acceptable to use force (such as the distinction between threats to life and threats to property discussed above or real-world cases involving criminals being attacked when fleeing or having left the property) and there are similar questions about the level of force (enough to stop the crime, detain the suspect or deliberately injuring/killing them as “punishment”). None of this is automatically or exclusively relevant to the use of firearms though.

There are a related set of questions that are firearm specific (especially in places like the US where they’re common), including questions like the ones the OP raised about legal requirements for safe and secure storage of firearms restricting their effective availability for home defence. They’re perfectly valid to ask but the answers to those questions won’t be determining anything about whether you have a fundamental right to defend yourself in your home.
Click to expand...

All good points but most are in answer to different questions than the one presented in the OP. The question was not under what circumstances are we allowed to use potentially deadly force to defend ourselves or what means of deadly force there are. The question did not differentiate between all the different nuances of what defending ourselves would mean. It did not include any other instances in which use of a gun would be appropriate but the question was focused on one single concept: using a gun in our own home to defend ourselves.

The question was whether we had the right to use a gun in our own home to defend ourselves.

Personally I am of the opinion that any person who enters my home without authority or invitation and against my wishes is subject to be confronted with a gun. And if the person refuses to leave when confronted and I have any reason to suspect that person intends harm to me or anyone else in my household and has ability to harm me or anyone else in my household, I am within my rights to shoot. I hope and pray I am never in that circumstance as I value all forms of life. I let flies out of the house instead of swatting them if I can.

No amount of inserting other scenarios into or diversions from that single concept changes the principle involved. I believe I have a right to use a gun to defend myself and others in my household.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not having a weapon =/= not having the ability to kill someone. The intruder could use their bare hands. I will never understand why people think that just because someone is unarmed that they cannot be deadly.
Click to expand...

Even for the police, shooting someone unarmed is a bad shoot and can lead to prosecution of the officer. By your logic I could shot anyone I fear could harm me with their bare hands.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Simple question. Do people have the right to defend themselves in their own home with a gun?

Yes.

No.

Other.

Please explain your choices.

I say yes, of course they do. It's completely insane to think otherwise. And laws like Heller overturned most definitely should never have been thought of, much less enacted. Yet it is those laws which is touted as being "common sense gun laws" (the premise with which they were enacted in the first place). Laws that required long guns or shot guns to be either unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Laws that banned hand guns with the only ones being exempt being owned prior to 1975 and those owned by cops or retired cops.
Click to expand...
I believe so, yes. I also believe that it is a basic fundamental human right, and transcends laws and legal restrictions.

Having said that, I also know that using said fundamental right may cost one dearly, depending on where they live, etc.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
Even for the police, shooting someone unarmed is a bad shoot and can lead to prosecution of the officer. By your logic I could shot anyone I fear could harm me with their bare hands.
Click to expand...

Many people claim that its a bad shoot. Doesn't mean that it is. And yeah, they can go through a trial, doesn't mean that they'll be convicted. There are lots of cases where a person has shot someone to death even though the person that they shot was unarmed and didn't get convicted of anything.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Simple question. Do people have the right to defend themselves in their own home with a gun?

Yes.

No.

Other.

Please explain your choices.

I say yes, of course they do. It's completely insane to think otherwise. And laws like Heller overturned most definitely should never have been thought of, much less enacted. Yet it is those laws which is touted as being "common sense gun laws" (the premise with which they were enacted in the first place). Laws that required long guns or shot guns to be either unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Laws that banned hand guns with the only ones being exempt being owned prior to 1975 and those owned by cops or retired cops.
Click to expand...

You have the right to defend yourself against an imminent threat, anywhere.

That does not entail a right to do anything you think necessary to protect against hypothetical future attacks.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Many people claim that its a bad shoot. Doesn't mean that it is. And yeah, they can go through a trial, doesn't mean that they'll be convicted. There are lots of cases where a person has shot someone to death even though the person that they shot was unarmed and didn't get convicted of anything.
Click to expand...

If the police officer is in a non-threatening situation; i.e. he/she knows the other person has no means to seriously harm somebody, shooting that person would be criminal. If the police officer has no way to know if the threatening actions of another could result in severe bodily harm, then shooting him can and should be very much justified.

Likewise in the home. If the intruder is threatening bodily harm to anybody in the household or his intentions are uncertain, use of deadly force, including a gun, is justified. Personally I don't think a homeowner should have to stand meekly by and let some thug steal him blind either, but I think I would not shoot in that circumstance myself.
 
joG said:
Even in countries that forbid ownership of weapons you are allowed to defend your life violently in your own home. You would go to jail for ownership or if the attack was against your possessions, though.
Click to expand...

...except in Texas. You can also use deadly force to protect your PROPERTY too.

as it should be. They did not work for it, I did!

My property line is my castle moat. All are welcome with noble purpose.

I however, do draw the line with all of the bumper stickers and posters about shooting burglars. An agenda driven prosecutor could use those to define predetermined INTENT.

They also advertise you have guns in the house.
 
other
a ''gun nut'' I am not
this depends so much on the circumstances , there cannot be a flat yes or no .
Right now, we have some ''gun nuts'' who are, shall we say .. semi-insane ...but effective federal level controls are weak or non-existent ..It is obvious what needs to be done .. but today, our conservatives say NO !
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not having a weapon =/= not having the ability to kill someone. The intruder could use their bare hands. I will never understand why people think that just because someone is unarmed that they cannot be deadly.
Click to expand...

You better believe it.

The narrative would be more accurate by saying NO VISIBLE WEAPON, which does not mean they do not have one.

Just because a weapon is not visible, does not mean they are unarmed.

"I don't see no injuns", does not mean they are not there.

It will all boil down to reasonable fear of your life, and if you look at the mindset of a criminal that would break into an OCCUPIED home, you have to think the worst in their intent...hostages, rape, torture, joy killing, who knows, but they KNOW there are people there and chose to break in anyway. That alone should tell you their intent. VISIBLE weapons or not.
 
Russell797 said:
Even for the police, shooting someone unarmed is a bad shoot and can lead to prosecution of the officer. By your logic I could shot anyone I fear could harm me with their bare hands.
Click to expand...

not a valid scenario because...

the police have lots of training
the police have other weapons to disable
the police have radios and other trained officers for backup

a private person ALONE being attacked by another single person, has no idea how much damage that one person can do to them.
 
Lovebug said:
I like to agree. If someone takes something from my home without harming anyone, no material possession is worth taking a life.
But what if? How do you know that the person stealing your tv will not escalate when confronted? It does take some gall, a certain mindset, breaking and entering someone's home for whatever reason. Is that person high on drugs? How far will he/she go when caught? What if said person doesn't want to be identified?
It is easy to theorize, but we won't know how we will react until we experience a situation necessitating life and death decisions. We may not have time to evaluate sufficiently and just react.
Click to expand...

I think generally in the case of a burglary, you are walking in your home and catching someone in there stealing they they 99% would run out. In that case I would not shoot them even if I had a gun in my hand at the time. However, if someone kicks the door in while we are home then that is a different story.
 
the ones that voted other may use water guns to defend themselves
 
If there is a threat to your life, yes.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
...except in Texas. You can also use deadly force to protect your PROPERTY too.

as it should be. They did not work for it, I did!

My property line is my castle moat. All are welcome with noble purpose.

I however, do draw the line with all of the bumper stickers and posters about shooting burglars. An agenda driven prosecutor could use those to define predetermined INTENT.

They also advertise you have guns in the house.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I had an attorney tell me once that "Beware of Dog" signs on a fence can actually make you liable for any injuries your dog causes, even to an intruder. The sign can be interpreted as you having full knowledge of the dog's ability and likely behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom