Youtube really needs to move it's headquarters to a place that doesn't have guns. Maybe they should go somewhere like California or Chicago or Detroit, they have strict laws there to protect them.
I heard that Pennsylvania (of all places) is working on making "Gun-Free Zones" illegal in the Commonwealth. The report was that it had passed the state senate and was moving to the state house.
I can honestly see that. Openly proclaiming a gun free zone is like advertising that your home is unlocked when you leave. Either way, there is most assuredly going to be trouble in la-la land. It's sad that it is now nearly mandatory that one has to go to extremes in order to protect life and property but it is what it is. Times have changed.
@Bobby Cole "Times have changed." As the great Oliver Hardy often proclaimed, "You're most "soitenly" right!"
I think the article regarding London being more violent than New York is a good story, but much as I dislike London, I believe this is fake news. Statistics compiled over a short term with very little evidence of factual accountability are meaningless. If the statement had been about Glasgow, I would take it more seriously.
To ban the means by which a killing takes place is so stupid only an idiot or a teen would come up with it. 911 3,000 died ==ban planes? thousands are killed in accidents == ban cars? millions are killed with prescription drugs == ban legal drugs? It is pretty obvious the means is not the killer but the use is
How about this, a man who in England defended him self and his wife was arrested for murder of an intruder. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43639183
@Tom Galty Why, intruders want to stay alive, too! After all, apprehended for criminal activity, what better way to get on the "dole"? Food, lodging, friendship, exercise, all provided at no charge, with the proviso that the perp cannot go about freely, commit additional crimes, must submit to the unmentionable demands of his neighbors now. Yet, in comparison, are not all non-criminals "imprisoned", in a way? House and happy home, own it. Think you do? Fail to pay the "dues", the "man", same man incarcerating the crook, comes and takes it away. Conscription: takes you off to possibly be killed defending "your country". Reality? Defending your politicians' well-being and longevity. Country is a nebulous term here. One is the same as another.........land mass existing above sea level, little more. rant done. Frank
The problem that exists here as well as the U.K. is a clearly defined parameter of the word "defense" instead of the word which precedes it, "reasonable". What is a reasonable defense to me is assuredly most different than it would be for other people. As nearly stated in the article, I think the problem with the gentleman in question is that he forced the perpetrator into the kitchen and then stabbed him to death with the screw driver. By forcing him into the kitchen, it shows that the aged home owner had control of the situation albeit there isn't much said about the 2nd criminal except that he escaped. There is the possibility that I missed something because I simply did a quick scan of the article but one thing that cannot be ascertained by anyone is the mental condition of the owner of the home. I am sure that at some point the question will be asked concerning how many times the criminal was stabbed but again, it cannot reveal what the defendant felt nor how many stabs he thought at the time it takes to subdue a younger and healthier criminal. Most people would not think at all but do whatever it takes to make sure their own safety is defended and whatever it takes is quite different from one person to another. If a person does not seek to escape but instead defends himself, (or herself) the primal instinct is generally focused on a permanent solution to the problem or rather, ending the life of a potential threat. The court might have to prove that the defendant had the experience and expertise to "know" at the moment he started wielding the screw driver that he was totally aware of what he was doing. Otherwise, in my opinion, it would be a total travesty of justice.
Bobby. Report stated that the Intruder force the home owner into the kitchen and also was the one with the screwdriver. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5580925/Pensioner-78-stabbed-burglar-bailed.html
Call it, early in morning and dyslexic reading................I re-read the initial link and it does indeed say that the intruder forced the gentleman into the kitchen and he did also have a screwdriver. But then, it also says that the intruder was stabbed but didn't say with what so that's probably where my skimming went awry. I just mentally installed the screwdriver into the homeowner's hand. My mistake. That said, one way or the other the point I was making was about the word, "reasonable" which is still part of the debate that the courts are going to have to come up with some answers for.
I have a couple of weapons in my house and feel strongly that people would be safer if they had the means to provide for their own safety, although I don't expect to ever have to. However, when a homeowner or any private citizen is in a position where they use a weapon on another human being, the results will have a lot to do with the cop or the prosecutor that might become involved in it. A cop who does not believe that a private citizen should be able to have a gun is going to be looking for a reason to make an arrest, and a the prosecutor who is opposed to private gun ownership is more likely to charge him with a crime. I think the idea behind most of the laws governing the use of a firearm is that we are not permitted to use a gun in order to punish someone for breaking into our house, or trying to steal our car, or whatever. Plus, as private citizens, we are not the police, so some states will not permit a private citizen to use a gun in order to detain someone, although that varies from state to state. If the private gun owner can persuade the investigating cop that they used a gun because they were afraid for their life or for the life of someone else, they will probably not even be arrested, unless someone has a special issue relating to gun ownership. If a gun owner can make a reasonable case for being in fear of their life, or that of a family member, they are unlikely to be charged, or to be convicted in court if they are arrested. The biggest reason for danger would be if it appears that the gun owner was looking for a reason to shoot someone, and things like Facebook posts or tweets might be used to give that impression. Regardless of laws, if I were genuinely in fear of my life, or that of my wife, I would use a weapon if that seemed like the only way to change the situation, but I wouldn't use a weapon just because someone broke my window or stole my television, and that would be true even if I lived in a state that allowed me to shoot someone who broke into my house.
We are allowed to "Constitutional Carry" (open or concealed) as long as you are a legal Alaska resident. We can also shoot anyone who enters our residence in a "threatening manner". This never seems to lead to any shootings since everybody knows most people here are armed. Most of the shootings here are either suicides or drug /alcohol related. We do have a lot of property crimes--car thefts and property thefts outside our residences. Again, most of those are drug related or homeless folks.
If someone enters your home and threatens you, you have the right to defend yourself, which is what happened The man is free to go on his way and good people are helping him to reinforce his home against intruders The trauma of the incident must have been great - I wish him and his wife - peace