Paul Mendelle, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, is opposed to the Conservative proposal to bow to both sanity and morality and allow homeowners to defend themselves against intruders. According to Mr Mendelle, this would lead to burglars being killed.And the problem with this is...?
7 comments:
Mendelle is an utter clot; “Burglars, knowing that they could be killed, might be more likely to carry weapons and/or use extreme violence. So it would be wholly counterproductive,”
Criminals, by their very nature are cowards, the least sign of force or defense and they fall back. The thought of an armed homeowner (pointed stick, bunch of bananas, etc) would drive the crime rate to near zero.
I'm always amazed at the common sense I read in the comments section of the Times yet it's always in reaction to something from a goofy elected official.
How can sensible people keep putting into office such a bunch of...oh wait...we've been doing that too.
Criminals, by their very nature, stand outside of civilization. If one confronts a thief, he should be prepared for there to also be a weapon, and a willingness to use it. Just as confronting a wild animal that has entered one's campsite may scare it away, or result in a fight. Shouting "boo" and hoping for the best won't cut it; the situation is a very real one.
The question is, should a citizen have the agency to decide: stand his ground and defend his property, or hide until the thief has gone? Me, I am all for agency. Mr. Mendelle, apparently not. I would guess that Mr. M. is also in favor of appeasing foreign enemies and hoping they'll go away. Sheltered life. Thinks that everyone wants to play by the rules.
Maybe I should say criminals are opportunists, and the threat of force is a deterrent to their cause.
Although that makes criminals sound like politicians, and so does "stand outside of civilization" as you said, that really sounds like politicians.
Personally I believe that, like wild animals in the camp, dispatching criminals with whatever weapon is at hand without fear of governmental repercussion is a good course.
I'd say that the issue here is, there are bold people, and there are timid people. Good bold people will say something like, "No one in my family has been to college, but I can see a (hard) way for me to pull it off." Evil bold people say, "This guy has something valuable, and if no one stops me, I'll just hit him on the head and take it." Timid people follow the trails that the bold ones blaze. I think that any criminal must be among the bold ones, since there is the risk of capture and infamy.
No question that a burglar is going to be more likely to raid a house that he thinks unlikely to shoot back. I would say that the proper load in (semi-)civilized parts of town, or forests where the wolves know to respect humans, is rat-shot in the chamber, then ball or hollow-point in the magazine, whichever feeds. If the enemy doesn't scare off, you've got plenty more lead to throw at it. Very wild places, no rat-shot. I think there are places in Alaska where one does not come out of his tent without a rifle loaded for grizzly.
For those with enough land to support a garden, the solution to the 'home intruder problem' is obvious.
I hear it's good for the tomatoes.
Tomatoes? Pardon me while I get something out of the crawl space.
And it's almost planting season too!
Post a Comment