Well another case in point, at gunpoint even, that makes me see things differently is how a former Miss America, now 82, bested some thieves!


"He was probably wetting his pants," said Ramey, who balanced on her walking stick as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.


Click Here


OD

Doing some quick Google searches I have found numerous references but who can tell what is real?It seems that the statistics can be used to support either side of the argument depending on what factors are included or excluded.

I saw that last night and laughed me a** off when I read it

I think what Rabbit meant was that sport shooting is more popular closer to the rural areas. As far as needing a hunting rifle in a city; if you hunt, you need a proper firearm-no matter where you live.

I no longer shoot, but when I did, I had to keep my rifle under lock and key at the range. I realise that it would not necessarily be illegal to carry it in public in the States, but it is illegal here, and I think the assumption made in the UK that anyone carrying such a weapon in public intends to use it for harm is a reasonable one.


However, I would support a change in UK law that permitted people to keep weapons at home to defend against intruders - if someone breaks into your house, they deserve everything they get as far as I'm concerned, but that too, is illegal here.

I don't believe that a home intruder "deserves" anything they try to obtain illegally by breaking into your home.This is the argument that people use to justify a criminal's actions.I don't see any justification for such behavior.

Neither do I. Do you think that's what I was trying to do?

I said if someone breaks into your house, he deserves everything he gets. Bearing in mind I said that in the context of people defending their homes against intruders, does anyone else think I meant the intruder deserves to keep what he steals?

Judge Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, and a lay Professor of the University of Michigan, in his book Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, published in 1878, wrote: "...the law favors the complete and undisturbed dominion of every man over his own premises, and protects him therein with such jealousy that he may defend his possessions against intruders, in person or by his servants or guests, even to the extent of taking the life of the intruder, if that seem essential to the defence. ...That in defence of himself, any member of his family, or his dwelling, a man has a right to employ all necessary violence, even to the taking of life... ...a man assaulted in his dwelling is under no obligation to retreat; his house is his castle, which he may defend to any extremity. And this means not simply the dwelling-house proper, but includes whatever is within the curtilage as understood at the common law. ...And in deciding what force it is necessary to employ in resisting the assault, a person must act upon the circumstances as they appear to him at the time; and he is not to be held criminal because on a calm survey of the facts afterwards it appears that the force employed in defence was excessive." In concert with this, it is provided in the Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article 1 Section 6: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

O.K. Sorry, Rabbit. You kind of shocked me there for a second. I was hoping I misread your intended meaning.

Unfortunately, Indigo; while a vast majority of Americans believe in this (myself icluded) this ruling has undergone serious change since 1878. I believe now that we "may only use equal force" to repel such criminal behavior. In other words, you may not "shoot to kill" just because an intruder breaks into your home- you must prove that your life and that of your home's inhabitants was in imminent danger. Yes, this sounds strange; but police deal with this situation daily when responding to home invasion calls with reports of a shooting. Prosecuting attorneys hate this very scenario. There have been countless cases where the homeowner himself (or herself) was the one arrested after such an incident. This in itself stresses the need for a clear, unambiguous ruling on the part of the United States Supreme Court.