[RnR]

From the BBC:

"The Italian parliament has passed legislation allowing people to shoot robbers in self-defence."

via: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm

[fjolnirsson]

The new law will allow people to use legally registered weapons to protect themselves or others, and their property and the property of others, from harm.

It applies if there is a danger of aggression and the attacker does not desist.

Justice Minister Roberto Castelli backed the new law.

"Today criminals will have more to fear while there will be fewer problems for honest people," said Mr Castelli, who belongs to the Northern League.

Holy crap! They get it!

[LAR-15]

The EU just invalidated it, :mad:

[McCall911]

The EU just invalidated it
:mad:


And we'd be surprised because....?????????

:cuss:

[Third_Rail]

And if Italy says "FU" to the EU?

[Herself]

The EU just invalidated it, :mad:

Link, please?

--H

[Standing Wolf]

Italy has more sense than New York.

[beerslurpy]

I almost cant beleive this is true. If so, it is pretty incredible and completely awesome. Did someone translate common sense into italian?

Critics say the law will lead to more violence

Again the limeys miss the forest for the trees.

Defending oneself against robbers is a preferable violence to that done to society by the unchallenged spread of evil and lawlessness.

Lol wordy.

[CAnnoneer]

Wow, somebody in Europe finally has a good idea and the Brussels sprouts stomp it! Surprise, surprise.

[Chrontius]

Google News has nothing on the EU squishing this one, which is stupidly good luck. Think about it - the EU is going to be bickering instead of trying to override national sovereignty. :evil: And if Italy does tell them to get bent, it could be a turning point. (Seems like those always come by suprise...)

[beerslurpy]

Link, please?

--H
yeah, something this significant deserves a link. If the EU has overridden it, I cant find proof yet.

[Iain]

Again the limeys miss the forest for the trees.

Why would the BBC including a quote from critics (Italian critics) of this law be evidence of 'limeys' missing the point? It's just a piece of journalism.

[beerslurpy]

I'm sorry, it was wrong of me to assume there are British subjects working at the BBC. They might have been Canadian subjects, after all.

They missed the point because increased violence is irrelevant if that violence is preventing crimes from occuring and making law abiding people safer. If it takes violence to stop violent crimes like hot burglaries, then violence is perfectly appropriate.

[fjolnirsson]

The EU just invalidated it,

Link, please?

Anybody?...

[Iain]

They missed the point because increased violence is irrelevant if that violence is preventing crimes from occuring and making law abiding people safer. If it takes violence to stop violent crimes like hot burglaries, then violence is perfectly appropriate.

Quite right.

I was merely pointing out that the BBC was merely reporting the criticisms of the critics that it later quotes, and not making editorial comment as 'limeys'.

[ArmedBear]

Quite right.

I was merely pointing out that the BBC was merely reporting the criticisms of the critics that it later quotes, and not making editorial comment as 'limeys'.

Those on the BBC often have a hard time NOT making editorial comments as limeys. Those who don't are forced to apologize.

http://clivedavis.blogs.com/clive/2006/01/what_i_was_tryi.html

[Iain]

We can talk about Justin Webb if you like. Interesting, and somehow I missed it. In my experience by the way, what Webb says would not be violently disagreed with by most I know, except apparently by a certain letter writing few. Glad to see Webb said what he did, and I don't think he apologised in any way. Calling reporters to discuss reaction to their stories is par for the course on Feedback, that's what that programme does.

Webb didn't justify anything, and in fact pointed out that the White House is coming in for it from Republicans, and that this is a mark of a free and open country. We can all agree there, without necessarily agreeing with what the White House is doing. I apologise for letter writing idiots who can't.

In the case of this story (Italian self defence laws) then I just don't see any editorial comment. It briefly says what the new law does, and includes quotes from a couple of people on each side. That's what brief stories from other countries on minor issues (their law change not self defence generally) usually look like.

Can't remember how many posts I've made defending the media in recent times. I only do it where I feel that posters are reaching for what isn't there.

[ElTacoGrande]

If you think about the history of gun control in Europe, it started in response to the ruling class' fear of socialist revolution. They decided to disarm the workers. That fear no longer has any basis; there isn't going to be any socialist revolution in Europe. Now the new reality is that with Europe's increased immigration, freer borders, and social dislocation, crime is a real problem, and the solution might be to allow Europeans, who have citizenship and clean records, to pack.

I do have one problem with this new law: it allows shooting purely in defense of property. I honestly think that that is going too far. I think there must be some fear of bodily harm to justify a shooting.

Anyway, that's a great step for them. I'm also happy about the referendum in Brasil. Maybe CCW reform will move beyond the US???

[fjolnirsson]

I do have one problem with this new law: it allows shooting purely in defense of property. I honestly think that that is going too far. I think there must be some fear of bodily harm to justify a shooting.

Well, I don't know. Before I get flamed, here's my reasoning. I don't mean I'm going to shoot someone over a tv set. That's silly. I'd much rather take sensible precautions:alarms,dogs,lights, etc.
But think about this: For most middle and lower income families, a vehicle is a significant investment, and one which can't be easily replaced. If my truck were stolen, it would severly impact my life. For someone with only one vehicle, even more so. If someone steals my means of travel to and from work, he has not only stolen the portion of my time which I used to pay for that vehicle, he has also stolen food from the mouth of my child. If I cannot drive to work, I cannot make more money to replace my vehicle, or to feed my child. The thief has, in effect reduced me to starvation- death , or begging. This, to me, is a violent action against my family.
Now, if I see someone trying to steal my truck, will I shoot him? I doubt it. I wouldn't stand there and let him take it, though. I'd probably release my dogs to drive him off, or go out there myself. If I go out and he causes me to fear for my life, I'm gonna shoot him, yes. On my property, I have a right to be there, and even if it upsets him, his threat is his fault, not mine.
Just my 2 cents.

[CAnnoneer]

Keeping your property is a fundamental right. It should be legal to shoot somebody over it after a clear warning. The modern system puts the life of a criminal dirtbag over what should be your legal rights as a law-abiding individual. It only comes to show how far we as a society have progressed down the path of blissninny socialist emaciation.

Btw, to steal somebody's horse in the Wild West was a capital offense, not the least reason being that being stranded in the wilderness without supplies and effective means of transportation would generally mean your death...

[fjolnirsson]

Btw, to steal somebody's horse in the Wild West was a capital offense, not the least reason being that being stranded in the wilderness without supplies and effective means of transportation would generally mean your death...
__________________

Bingo.
Just like being stranded in the "ghetto", after your car's been stolen, eh?

[ebd10]

Did someone translate common sense into italian?

Italians, especially the Sardinians and the Sicilians, are pretty rational. I mean, they've been conquered by so many people that they no longer take the government seriously. Government is just something that gets in the way of business and life. WE could learn from THEM!

[LAR-15]

Sorry I was wrong about the EU invalidating it.

I thought EU mandate prohibted a member country from allowing people to obtain guns for self defense.

[Werewolf]

A criminal lawyers' group also criticized the law, saying it amounted to allowing "legitimate offence".Why doesn't that surprise me. Seems that lawyers the world over are all the same. :barf:

[Chrontius]

Why doesn't that surprise me. Seems that lawyers the world over are all the same. :barf:

Criminal defence laywers are paid to represent the interests of their clients -- think about this for a minute. They'd be in breach of contract if they did anything else.

[Lucky]

They weren't allowed to use a knife to defend themselves in their own house before??????????:what:

When self-defence is a privilege, it's time to get the ef out.

[tube_ee]

They weren't allowed to use a knife to defend themselves in their own house before??????????:what:

When self-defence is a privilege, it's time to get the ef out.

Then you'd better get out of the US, as self-defense is a privilege here. State laws (so far as I know, all of them) include self-defense as an exculpatory defense against charges of homicide or assault. If those laws were changed, you'd no longer be legally able to defend yourself. The Constitution does not include provisions specifically recognizing a right of self-defense, so as near as I can figure, such a change would be legal. Stupid, but legal.

If it can be changed by the Legislature without violating the Constitution, it's not a right, at least in the legal sense of the word.

--Shannon

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Great food, beautiful women, fast cars, and now the legal right to defend yourself. What a great place!

If I ever feel the urge to expatriate, Italy is definitely where I'll go. :D

[Lucky]

Wow. Here we're allowed to use whatever force is necessary to protect ourselves or others. To be safe, companies stress that it should be minimal and reasonable, though.

[gvass]

"I thought EU mandate prohibted a member country from allowing people to obtain guns for self defense."

There is NO such restriction at all!

And from January 1., 2006 in Slovakia (EU-member since 2004) there is also a new law, which is basically the "castle doctrine". You do not need to retreat when you are attacked in a place where you are legally. There is no more "same force" requirement when you are attacked in your own home.

And Slovakia is already a shall-issue state.