Gun Laws!

[David]

OK I asked this awhile back and didn't get the response I was looking for.

If someone breaks into your home in Peru and you are home at the time, what rights do you have?

Can you simply stand there and let him take your property, or can you grab a bat and whack him. Are you allowed to use brute force that is more then equal to the force the bad guy uses?

What happens if a struggle ensues and the bad guy gets killed (by accident of course).

What happens if you kill him cause he had a knife or a gun?

David

[naturegirl]

I've heard, but please remember that I'm no expert in law. That if you kill the person you can be arrested for murder. And that if you hurt them, then you have to pay medical bills, etc.

Maybe that's why there's so much security, guards, wires, fences.

[Kelly]

Although I'm no expert either, from what I understand, you can not use more force than what is being used against you. If a thief is unarmed, you can't shoot him. I remember about 3 years back watching a standoff between a bunch of police and one guy with a knife. A couple of cops got stabbed during the altercation, but they did take him down eventually. I couldn't figure out why they didn't just shoot him, and my husband explained it was because the bad guy only had a knife. If one of them had shot him, they most likely would have been charged with a crime.

[Dan Bonenberger]

David , The Burglaries I am aware of (Friends) houses. No one was home. Like I said, Just last week a friend of mine her mothers house was entered by the thieves knocking a hole in the wall. They didn't even bother the bars on the window. They broke a hole in the wall next to the kitchen. This was in Ancon. No one saw anything and if they did they were too scared to say anything. If you are interested I can tell you how my friend Jorge solved this problem. PM me. Take Care Dan

[David]

So if my dog eats him I'm good to go!

Thanks all!

[sbaustin]

I've heard the same thing from other Peruvians about using reciprocal force. If they have a knife you can only use a knife, etc. Being from Texas I like the fact we can execute a burglar, and suggested to my girlfriend's family that they have 2 pistols. One to take care of the burglar, and the other to plant. I'm not sure they'll be coming to TX anytime soon!

[Dan Bonenberger]

I think I read last year that some fool tried to steal a Policemens car. He shot him through the head. Messy ,but he was thought of as a hero. Anyone remember. Dan

[Kelly]

I didn't hear of that one - I remember about 2 years ago though, when an off-duty cop driving a cab got knifed and killed.

[cajun jamie]

slightly dark topic here. ??? Someone breaks into your house and the owner is supposed to start thinking of the "rules."

Just remember, there are walls, with broken glass, metal spikes and high voltage electric lines. Funny I never read of someone killed by climbing a wall and getting electrocuted and the home-owner getting sued for that.

Last burglar incident I heard was a guy broke into a home, woke the family up and took off. A neighbor saw the incident, was ex-military with a license to carry a gun. As the burglar tried to run away alongside a wall, the guy pulled his pistol, shot him dead. Case closed.

[Arroz con Pollo]

I guess Peru home owners require 2 guns. One registered in their name and 1 untraceable with the serial number filed off. Thief breaks in, you shoot him dead. Place your untraceable gun in his hand. Just pray Detective Colombo does not come knocking at your door.

[Dan Bonenberger]

Arroz con Pollo, Good to see you. I don't think Colombo would show up , Because Who wears a raincoat in Lima. If he did , for a few Soles and a couple of Cuban cigars, I think he would look the other way. Take Care Dan

[Jimmy111]

Dont think of the Peruvian Detectives as Dumb. Lazy, of course, greedy definetly, but the few times I have had run ins with them they were far from dumb. They do like to wear trench coats too. I think that they watched too many episodes from Hawaii 5O and Dragnet because they always have that serious look and demeanor on their face.
They will usually do their job well and they do have good CSI types here in Peru too. Being that you are a gringo I am sure that they will be called out. But it is not the Dectives who will cause you the most trouble. It is the Judges.

[rgamarra]

Dont think of the Peruvian Detectives as Dumb. Lazy, of course, greedy definetly, but the few times I have had run ins with them they were far from dumb. They do like to wear trench coats too. I think that they watched too many episodes from Hawaii 5O and Dragnet because they always have that serious look and demeanor on their face.
They will usually do their job well and they do have good CSI types here in Peru too. Being that you are a gringo I am sure that they will be called out. But it is not the Dectives who will cause you the most trouble. It is the Judges.

There are reasons why people have dogs on their properties.

[Dan Bonenberger]

Hi Jimmy111, You say you had a few run ins with the law. Obviously you came out on top. The Peruvian Justice system just confounds me. I have never even seen a Detective. In Chin Cha Alta ,I stopped in a store to get writing materials. It was less than a 100 feet from the Police Station. While inside this little weasel tried to pickpocket me and I just literally threw him outside where the Store manager started hitting him with a stick. Two Police officers rushed to the store. One held the thief down with his boot on the guys neck. The store manager told the Police what happened faster than an Auctioneer. The police then dragged the thief to the Police station , taking turns hitting him with their Batons and then kicking him. I think he survived just because of the proximity to the station. They left me , no report or court date. That was my first trip to peru so my Spanish was limited. I got in my car and left. My friends In Callao and Ancon, laughed when I mentioned why they didn't call the Police after they told me of incidents that happened to them.In the provinces I found police protection extremely rare after dark. Along the docks while sailing my boat I did notice Men dressed in black army fatigues carrying shotguns. I know this to prevent these thieves in boats from sneaking up and robbing the facilities. Maybe some of you Expats with experience's could get together on this Forum and write a "Simple Book of Laws in Peru for Dummies". I would buy the first copy. Take Care Friends Dan

[diego.rico]

Why would you want to shoot an unarmed person again? Out of spite?

Person breaks into house = deserves to lose life?

Doesn't seem like a very reasonable quid pro quo.

[NexLevel]

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You attempt to do harm to me, and I will do the same. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.

[el conquistador]

I guess Peru home owners require 2 guns. One registered in their name and 1 untraceable with the serial number filed off. Thief breaks in, you shoot him dead. Place your untraceable gun in his hand. Just pray Detective Colombo does not come knocking at your door.

Or even better. 1 gun and 1 spade.
The gun to kill the burglar and the spade to bury him in your garden. Case closed.

[americorps]

comment's like nextlevel are understandable, but dangerous in Peru.

The law is Peru is pretty clear that you can only use like force. That means if someone is threatening you and you pull out a gun and shoot them, you are very likely going to be charged with murder or manslaughter for excessive force.


I am not making a comment about the law, only relaying that it exists.

[falconagain]

Yes what americorps says is true. Criminals are too protected because of those laws.

Reminds me of a case in the early 1990s a chinese peruvian businesman left his store and was
assaulted by three young men with knives, the poor guy only carried his wallet, one silver
coin and his documents. In the heat of the moment of a short fight he hit one of the guys
with the silver coin and killed him. He was taken to jail for assassination. In the news the
media called him all kind of names for defending himself. There is a lot of prejudices in
the Peruvian society so the case was blown out of proportion. He was called racist,
monster. The family sued the guy. It took him a lot of money and a year in court to
be declared non guilty.

Now, this happened without using like force. So I guess the lesson is do not leave any
witnesses if you can.

[MartitaAQP]

As others have implied, basically the fact that someone is an intruder on your private property does not give you any more rights under Peruvian law than you would have for self defense on the street. If you hurt/kill someone you will have to prove that you not only had reason to FEAR for your life but also that the person had the ability and intention of hurting or killing you personally. If they can argue, for example, that if you had surrendered money you would not have been harmed, then you will be found at fault and sent to jail for the harm/killings. This ain't texas, ya'll. Try not to be in this position 'cause defending yourself once they're in your house could do more harm than good.

I carry a stun gun and a baston for personal protection since I am on the streets alone after 11pm. I've been blessed thus far but non-lethal self-defense is very important here.

MartitaAQP

[diego.rico]

"It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You attempt to do harm to me, and I will do the same. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they aren't dangerous."

How often is this actually the case?

Was the guy in Texas who shot two burglars in his neighbor's house a few years ago in danger? No, he was just another bloodthirsty, racist, Texan idiot with a gun.

People who think this way don't need guns. They need anger management classes, a psychologist and a jail cell alongside the burglars.

[RICHARDandNORA]

In the USA in most jusisdictions, you do have special rights when in your home or business is invaded and some states, more power when the assault occurs at night. These all involve when you are in fear of your life (or someone that you are protecting) or of serious bodily harm. Generally speaking, one can not protect property with excessive force. It varies from state to state. For example in one state if you home is being invaded by a guy with guns, knives etc. but he is retreating, you would be prosecuted if you shot him in the back because it appears he was retreating. In other states, it does not matter.

[falconagain]

Is really unfortunate that the laws in Peru punish the victim instead of the
perpetrator.
Back in 2010 El Comercio announced that they were making a poll to see
if the citizens of Lima agreed with the creation of death squads like in
Fujimori times to deal with crime. Most of the reporters that were
interviewed were against it. But they did not like the result of their
own poll because 95% of Lima was completely in favor of the death
squads.

[jcn7vc]

Was the guy in Texas who shot two burglars in his neighbor's house a few years ago in danger? No, he was just a hero to his neigbor.

Fixed.

[diego.rico]

"A hero to his neighbor."

Classic.

So..what if the invader is a 15 year old, unarmed kid? Kill em still?

I think I should be able to shoot people in the face when they cut me off on the freeway. They endangered my life, and the life of my passengers. They should pay dearly for their crimes.

How's that sound?

This is why I would never live in a "red" state in the United States. The people just...well, think "differently".

..and "differently" is synonymous with "backwards" in this context.

Forget social progression. Let's kill everyone, starting with minorities, gays and people who believe in a different god/no god.

"God'' help the 15 year old, gay, atheist, black who breaks into your house. Just take his life, it doesn't count. After all, he is gay, black and atheist.

Right?

[Kelly]

I would say with that comment, you're just trying to start a fight. While I understand your point of view, in fact concur with it, no one in this thread talked about shooting an unarmed, gay, black teenager, and bringing hyperbole to the conversation doesn't really help you prove your point.

In fact, I'm not even sure why you went to all the trouble to make the only thread you've really commented on in this whole forum one that had been dead for three years.

If you have a point to make, make it. I should think it's possible to do that with out insulting and name calling. I believe the OP wanted to know about gun laws in Peru, and what they're rights are in Peru. The forum isn't here for discussion anyone's opinions on gun laws in Texas or California or Georgia or Denmark, for that matter.

[el conquistador]

To get a gun in Peru you must be a resident and have a CE. It's tough to get a gun licence.

But remember. Guns attract guns.
If you have a gun then criminals will think that you got a lot of money or a lot of valuable items so criminals will also come (in group) with guns and they won't hesitate to shoot. If they are in group, maybe you can shoot one but not all.

[Drake]

To get a gun in Peru you must be a resident and have a CE. It's tough to get a gun licence.

How is that hard? You need to take a psygolocigal test and shooting test and fill a form and you can get a gun for selfdefence. I got a licence for hunting gun. But Im not planning to get a licence for a pistol for selfdefence. Im just saying that it is possible and not even hard.

"God'' help the 15 year old, gay, atheist, black who breaks into your house. Just take his life, it doesn't count. After all, he is gay, black and atheist.

I understand your point, taking a life is a serious thing and wasn´t it this wise king Hamurabi who Said "eye for and eye" So if someone steals your things it doesn´t give you the right to harm them. You can just hold them and if they are violent then you can defend yourself. But I think best way is to keep doors locked and your electric fences on. If they scorch themselves it´s not your fault

[falconagain]

"God'' help the 15 year old, gay, atheist, black who breaks into your house. Just take his life, it doesn't count. After all, he is gay, black and atheist.


Actually 15 year old, gay, atheist and black fits by coincidence the profile of the most violent
and deadly criminals in Lima. You will get applauded by your neighbors because they are the
most difficult criminals to rid in the city, not even the police wants to keeps them arrested.

[el conquistador]

"God'' help the 15 year old, gay, atheist, black who breaks into your house. Just take his life, it doesn't count. After all, he is gay, black and atheist.


Actually 15 year old, gay, atheist and black fits by coincidence the profile of the most violent
and deadly criminals in Lima. You will get applauded by your neighbors because they are the
most difficult criminals to rid in the city, not even the police wants to keeps them arrested.

Falconagain. Then according to you Jorin Vandersloot is gay, black, atheist and 15 year old. ?????
For sure, we can agree that he's the most violent and deadly criminal in Lima. Just like the other guy who killed a girl, put her in a suitcase and threw her in the sea. Was he also black, gay, atheist and 15 year old?

[falconagain]

I did not make any comments about Mr. Vandersloot.
I was making a comment about the Peruvian Criminal World, as far
as I know Mr. Vandersloot is not Peruvian. I do not see any relationship.

[Kelly]

This thread has moved into more of an opinion thread rather than any actual useful information about Peruvian gun laws, so I'm going to slide it on over to the News and Views forum.

[rama0929]

"God'' help the 15 year old, gay, atheist, black who breaks into your house. Just take his life, it doesn't count. After all, he is gay, black and atheist.


Actually 15 year old, gay, atheist and black fits by coincidence the profile of the most violent
and deadly criminals in Lima. You will get applauded by your neighbors because they are the
most difficult criminals to rid in the city, not even the police wants to keeps them arrested.

Falconagain. Then according to you Jorin Vandersloot is gay, black, atheist and 15 year old. ?????
For sure, we can agree that he's the most violent and deadly criminal in Lima. Just like the other guy who killed a girl, put her in a suitcase and threw her in the sea. Was he also black, gay, atheist and 15 year old?

Not only does humor get lost in an online forum, so does sarcasm...

[asgoodasitgets]

I agree that a home is ones castle, especially if you have a wife and kids. Anyone who comes in there, especially at night, does so at their own risk.

Tasers don't count as a non-lethal, tasers do far too often kill... What do you do then? If you punch somebody with a coin (?) and that kills them (??) and you're considered a murderer for it... what chance does a taser have? One very underreported statistic is the fact that many crimes are prevented simply by the intended victim waving a gun in the face of the attacker and ending it non-violently right there.

Self defense is a basic human right, that's going to become more apparent as the global economy declines, unfortunately. The question always comes back to who has the right to decide for others what is best for them.

The media usually has a strong bias on this, their owners also founded the UN which is for global disarmament. I posted a great lecture on gun statistics which refutes a lot of media bias in a previous thread I started on this issue. Anyone interested should go watch it - very worthwhile.

I would live in Texas particularly because of it's gun laws

[falconagain]

I am actually moving to Texas soon. Shooting first with a clear conscience in the
right moment at the right time sounds more civilized.

Actually I never used a gun before but now I am convinced that bearing arms
is a requirement for any civilization.

[rama0929]

Actually I never used a gun before but now I am convinced that bearing arms
is a requirement for any civilization.

What changed your mind?

[asgoodasitgets]

I am actually moving to Texas soon. Shooting first with a clear conscience in the
right moment at the right time sounds more civilized.

Actually I never used a gun before but now I am convinced that bearing arms
is a requirement for any civilization.

Cool, I second the above question

I used to be anti-gun, until I a) looked at some alternative information b) utilised my own powers of decision inside of my brain area. I realised I don't care what anyone else said, I want the freedom to choose. And I've had my life threatened directly by several different people, in unrelated incidents, probably at least four times now that I think of it - serious threats. One time somebody actually came back and got caught trying to break into my house at 2am after making such a threat. I've chased down people robbing my place, (one chase went for about 1.5 km, and I only lost the piece of trash because he ran into someone elses house though an open door and jumped the fence in their back yard, and I decided I didn't have a right to also do that). This was not in Peru. Anyway it was mostly job related stuff, I wasn't even working security then. In every single instance, the police were either very late, or did absolutely nothing, not even a phone call or a visit to deter the threatening party. I also had a close friend have his life threatened by a police officer for no reason that I was witness to. Turned out to be a senior police officer.

Good cops know - an armed citizenry is a huge deterrent to gun crimes, especially the deranged shooter type crimes everyone is so afraid of. You go trying to do something like that in a crowd full of lawfully armed citizens, you might get a few rounds off, then you're toast. None of this 15 kids killed nonsense. Good cops always prefer an armed citizenry for their own self interest. It's the backup to a criminal act that's always nearby.

[rama0929]

Good cops know - an armed citizenry is a huge deterrent to gun crimes, especially the deranged shooter type crimes everyone is so afraid of. You go trying to do something like that in a crowd full of lawfully armed citizens, you might get a few rounds off, then you're toast. None of this 15 kids killed nonsense. Good cops always prefer an armed citizenry for their own self interest. It's the backup to a criminal act that's always nearby.

In Texas, where they love their guns...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... JR20110724

http://www.chron.com/news/article/1-dea ... 172272.php

http://www.ksat.com/news/29233137/detail.html

And no discussion on guns, deranged shooters and Texas is complete without a mention of Charles Whitman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Not anti-gun, not by a long shot, but they're not the be-all end-all they're often made out to be; I can get smoked in TX (pro gun) as easily as I can get smoked in NY (anti gun). Unless you're at the ready, even if you carry, you can get got by someone else.

[renodante]

this thread is making me miss shooting.

[Polaron]

Exactly rama. People claim that if they are allowed to walk down the street with a gun strapped on their side, they will be able to protect themselves (perfectly legal to do that in Arizona, for example). My point is this: is a mugger or assailant going to walk up to you and announce his intentions, giving you enough time to remove your gun from its holster, deactivate the safety if it is so equipped, point and fire? It is every bit as likely that someone will come up behind you, put a knife against your throat and relieve you of your firearm. The only way to be truly prepared would be to travel in groups of two or more people, with guns drawn.

Heaven help you if you are at home and have to dig your gun out of your bed table or wherever you keep it in response to a home invasion. Crooks usually don't tarry when they break in with the intention of robbing you and doing you harm (as opposed to the intention of thievery); in the time it would take you to get up and get your gun, they might already be on top of you. The alternative would involve having loaded guns all over the house ready for quick access, but who would want to live that way?

Guns are not a panacea of protection.

[asgoodasitgets]

But they are a deterrent Polaron. Even if a thief in your example didn't announce his intentions, if the populace is *generally* armed, then every citizen is potentially a cop right there if someone does attack you. Do you agree that people have the right to choose for themselves, that no over-arching authority has the right to decide otherwise?

The American founders for example hated democracy, because 51% of the people can vote away the other 49% of the people's rights, or 99% can vote away 1%'s rights. It comes back to individual liberty - the right to choose. It comes back to the same issue. Absent God sharing his direct thoughts on the matter with everyone to remove all ambiguity on what works best and what's right... it's got to be a plain human on the other end doing the "deciding".

The controversial fact is that the principle of an armed populace is not only to defend from common crimes or for hunting, though they have uses there, but principally for a widely armed and educated populace to be able to defend themselves from an internal standing army should it attempt to rise against them. That's the big elephant in the living room issue nobody ever wants to look at and it's the most important one of all.

[el conquistador]

Every year, so many children get killed after playing with their parents guns.

And so many people killed their own relatives after a small argument when there's a gun in the house.

It happens daily that people with a gun kill themselves when feeling unhappy or had a bad experience. If they had no gun they would have got help to solve their often small problem.

All the people above their lives would have been saved if guns were made illegal.

Guns are made to kill people. Nothing else.

[rama0929]

But they are a deterrent Polaron. Even if a thief in your example didn't announce his intentions, if the populace is *generally* armed, then every citizen is potentially a cop right there if someone does attack you.

In theory, certainly. In application, not so much.

The controversial fact is that the principle of an armed populace is not only to defend from common crimes or for hunting, though they have uses there, but principally for a widely armed and educated populace to be able to defend themselves from an internal standing army should it attempt to rise against them. That's the big elephant in the living room issue nobody ever wants to look at and it's the most important one of all.

It's not controversial at all. Remember, the populace WAS the standing army. Not so much the case anymore; we have the National Guard for that. You won't find "informal groups" (for lack of a better term) defending the country anymore.

[rama0929]

All the people above their lives would have been saved if guns were made illegal.

That isn't necessarily true; they could've been beaten to death
http://www.kansas.com/2011/09/13/201537 ... en-to.html

Or hit by a car
http://www.wlky.com/r/28167033/detail.html

Or jumped off a bridge
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07 ... gy-teacher

Guns aren't the problem, people wanting to kill are. If they don't shoot, they'll find another way to do it.

[renodante]

Absent God sharing his direct thoughts on the matter

that'll be the day.

[asgoodasitgets]

Every year, so many children get killed after playing with their parents guns.

And so many people killed their own relatives after a small argument when there's a gun in the house.

It happens daily that people with a gun kill themselves when feeling unhappy or had a bad experience. If they had no gun they would have got help to solve their often small problem.

All the people above their lives would have been saved if guns were made illegal.

Guns are made to kill people. Nothing else.

Then don't buy one and don't have one in your house. Do you know how many people die from;

falling off ladders
car accidents
drowning in bathtubs
drowning in the sea, swimming pools, spas etc.
household electrocution
work accidents
lightening strikes....

and many other things.

How many lives are saved by guns, how many crimes prevented. There's not so much study on that, but I think you will find it quite enlightening - check out the link I provided in the other thread.

[rama0929]

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

[diego.rico]

I am actually moving to Texas soon. Shooting first with a clear conscience in the
right moment at the right time sounds more civilized.

So, answer the question: Would you shoot an unarmed 15 year old who invaded your home and still have a "clear" conscience?

I don't care where you are in the World...Texas or Beirut. If you shoot an unarmed child burglar in your home, regardless of whether or not the law is on your side, you are a murderer. Perhaps not legally, but morally.

Forget your "God", Karma would surely come back on you for something like that.

Kelly: I apologize for coming off as argumentative. I just get fed up of the gun-loving, "homeland"-protecting, hate speech that is just code for bigotry.

I just suppose the answer to my question would be this: What color is the 15 year old's skin?

[rama0929]

So, answer the question: Would you shoot an unarmed 15 year old who invaded your home and still have a "clear" conscience?

You have a split second to determine the age and race of the burglar, and whether (s)he's armed or not.

What do you do?

[Polaron]

Guns are for killing - period. Handguns are for killing people and the occasional opossum if you're a good enough shot. It is true that there are many ways to kill someone without using a gun: a knife, a car, your hands and feet, throwing someone off a bridge, etc.

The point is that guns make killing quick and easy, and not as messy as other forms. Usually, the worst that can happen to the perpetrator of a gun killing is traces of cordite on his hands. It takes more rage, strength and determination to stab someone to death, for example. Besides, statistics show that in homicides resulting from domestic disputes, for example, guns are used much more often than knives, throwing someone off a bridge or running over the victim with a car. So the argument that, "well, there are many ways to kill a person" is sophistic at best.

Asgood, I agree that guns can be a deterrent, and you mention that if everyone was armed, then everyone would be a potential policeman. What is also true is that everyone would be a potential criminal as well; let's not forget the lessons from the 19th century, when people walked around armed much more frequently than they do today. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which every single person would always be armed, which is your premise. The truth is, if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths.