On the flip side of that statement,what right did the burglar have to deprive the farmer of his property and livelihood?

Good point.

Thanks

Originally Posted by garysher
But what right did he have to shoot and injure the burglar?



Do you always answer one question with another question?

The shooting in the back was exactly why he went to jail. He claimed that he was trying to defend himself from intruders who were attempting to physically attack him - the shots in the back suggest the intruders were running away. The legal situation certainly was muddled; I'm not saying Martin didn't have the right to defend his property, but the case wasn't as clear-cut as the press at the time made out.

No.Do you?

Guns and More Guns

published: April 26, 2007
NY Times


"Those gun advocates who believe that the Second Amendment confers the right to carry a gun in public are quick to point out that they are law-abiding, decent citizens trying to protect themselves and their families in a world gone mad. But, of course, the guns can’t tell the difference. Arming more people would be a recipe for disaster.


True safety lies in the civility of society, in laws that publicly protect all of our rights and in having law-enforcement officers who are trained in the use of deadly force, then authorized to apply it in rationally defined situations. It is the gun lobby’s incessant efforts to weaken the gun laws that makes a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech possible."


This sums up my position too

Thank you, Fluffmeister. I understand that everyone should have the right to protect one's life, the lives of their loved ones,and their property. Unfortunately; the citizen is put in the position of having to split hairs on the legalities of his actions-sometimes in a time where lives might or might not be in imminent danger. Fluffmeister pointed out exactly the ambiguity of our laws that I was trying to do. Again, had this shooting occured here in the U. S.; Mr. Martin might be facing a vaery long prison sentence.
While I agree with our Second amendment; unfortunately it leads many to think the right to bear arms means they may use these weapons in any way they deem fit or necessary. That is where the muddle is.

Wouldn't that vary enormously depending on which state the shooting took place?

The thing about a gun in the house, legally, is this: if you have a domestic with your partner, and you both get extremely angry with each other, how easy it to storm to the bedroom, get the gun, load it, and in a fit of blind rage, pull the trigger at your partner?

If you have a gun in the house, you automatically raise the stakes in any confrontational situation.

If someone is breaking into your house, a gun is not required in order to evict the invader from your property.

Guns in daily life are such a bad, bad idea. I don't get how anyone can justify keeping a mechanism purely designed to kill in their household.