On 1 Mar 2003 at 18:58, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > Gary L. Nunn wrote: > > > > > > > >My opinion: I am a bit torn on this one. I am absolutely in > > > >favor > > > or > > > >self defense, especially in the home, but he did have an > > > >unlicensed gun in New York. But I am annoyed that the burglar was > > > >let go on probation (the first time) and now the dad is facing > > > >jail time for self defense. Hmmmm. > > > > > > > > > > I'm in favour of shooting people who have unliscenced guns in the > > > knee with them. *shrugs* > > > > > > You'll get no sympthy from me for posessing unliscenced lethal > > > weapons. > > > > > > Andy > > > Dawn Falcon > > > At 09:50 AM 3/2/03 +0900, G. D. Akin wrote: > >So license the gun and fine the guy. > > > >What was the other SOB doing in his house????? > > > > That, my friends, is the real issue here. > > Had he been an honest person minding his own legitimate business, > rather than a criminal breaking into someone else's residence, not > only would he not have gotten shot, but no one would know or care > whether the homeowner had a weapon, licensed or unlicensed.
There are two TOTALLY separate issues here. One, there's a criminal who broke and entered, and thus must be punished for such. Two, there's a criminal who owned and fired a unliscenced gun, and thus must be punished for such. Simple. This isn't an issue about "home defence" or similar. The Judge has a DUTY to stop that sort of evidence being introduced. See "The trial of Dr. Death". Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
