ironic, ain't it? Texas lawmaker shoots would-be thief
- Thread starter robphelan
- Start date
About as ironic as someone who votes for mandatory seat belt laws, which save a lot of lives, being one of the rare exceptions who is thrown from a crash because their seat belt didn't work, who would have been hurt worse with a seat belt on.
Measuring the effects of gun laws is tricky, because the populations are apples and oranges, usually, and there are other factors involved. Getting the data past ideologies is not easy either, people usually seem to have their opinion regardless of the data.
For what it's worth, I'm agnostic now, seeing both the theoretical benefits to eventually having fewer handguns out there and how other armed citizens won't prevent many acts of violence, versus some data that suggests more 'honest citizens' carrying guns may reduce gun violence rates.
What doesn't seem to work too well is the worst of both worlds, with local bans leaving criminals able to easily circumvent them. The payoff of a ban wouldn't have much effect until it starts drying up the criminal supply.
As for the debate, the outdoorsman in Idaho and the 16 year old gang member in Compton, CA are dissimilar enough for the debate to be pretty useless.
Measuring the effects of gun laws is tricky, because the populations are apples and oranges, usually, and there are other factors involved. Getting the data past ideologies is not easy either, people usually seem to have their opinion regardless of the data.
For what it's worth, I'm agnostic now, seeing both the theoretical benefits to eventually having fewer handguns out there and how other armed citizens won't prevent many acts of violence, versus some data that suggests more 'honest citizens' carrying guns may reduce gun violence rates.
What doesn't seem to work too well is the worst of both worlds, with local bans leaving criminals able to easily circumvent them. The payoff of a ban wouldn't have much effect until it starts drying up the criminal supply.
As for the debate, the outdoorsman in Idaho and the 16 year old gang member in Compton, CA are dissimilar enough for the debate to be pretty useless.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
He should have restrained him, humanly, sat him down and had a talk with him. I mean, people arent filled with hate, just misdirection right?
When you can't argue against actual positions, blackangst, make up a straw man. Oh, I see you already know to do that.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Whatchu talkin about? I'm all for guns for everyone *shrug* Just making a comment. I guess strawman is the catch phrase this month?
Oh and you might wanna pick up some new batteries for your meter...
You are saying straw man is not correct, in so many (vague) words.
Wrong. The anti-gun people don't say, as you facetiously quote them, that every situaton of violence should be addressed by a non-violent, hold his hand approach.
Since you can't argue against their actual positions, you create a phony one that greatly exaggerates and distorts their position - that's called a straw man.
The term was used exactly correctly.
And another accusation you can't back with any facts, as shown by the lack of any given.
Why don't you list few of the straw men I've posted? Because you can't.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
what.in.the.world.are.you.talking.about lol
man I was making a friggin joke lol get a sense of humor man geez lol
Did I quote anyone here? Didnt think so.
No, in this case its called sarcasm. Again, check your batteries. :roll:
Of course, for all we know, he might've been aiming for the guy's chest, but his uncontrollable laughter at having some moron throw a pocket knife at him might've thrown off his aim, ya know?? :laugh:
Doesn't matter that he didn't vote for the bill, it's passed, and will become law on Sept 1st of this year. Not that most Texans I know (and live around) would ever back down from some clown trying to break into their house!
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Of course, for all we know, he might've been aiming for the guy's chest, but his uncontrollable laughter at having some moron throw a pocket knife at him might've thrown off his aim, ya know?? :laugh:
Doesn't matter that he didn't vote for the bill, it's passed, and will become law on Sept 1st of this year. Not that most Texans I know (and live around) would ever back down from some clown trying to break into their house!
lol whats the phrase? Dont bring a knife to a gunfight? hahahaha
It is a very interesting coincidence, but like it says, even under the current law he was well within his rights to shoot the man who attacked him with a knife in his own house. Actually to my understanding you are probably legally allowed to shoot someone who attacks you with a deadly weapon even outside of your own home.
Did Texas really need to give people MORE rights to defend themselves with lethal force? As my understanding goes, you can legally kill someone in Texas if they step on your property, act in any way threatening to you anywhere, or if they don't like high school football. Seriously, what kind of reasonable self-defense was prohibited under the OLD law?
Criminally liable and civilly liable are two different critters.
I haven't looked for a couple years now, but it used to be that California (of all places) was the only state where there was no civil liability in a shooting judged to be "justifiable" by the local law enforcement.
In every other state (at least as of the last time I looked, years ago), you may be off the hook with law enforcement, but the perp and or his survivors could sue the shooter.
Also with a system of Plaintiff's lawyer(s) working for a cut of the settlement / judgement, but Defense costing hundreds of dollars an hour, even if the shooter wins the civil suit, it often bankrupts them.
What many/most/all of the "make my day" legislation didn't remove civil liability, it only solidified and / or expanded the scope of what's "justifiable."
FWIW
I haven't looked for a couple years now, but it used to be that California (of all places) was the only state where there was no civil liability in a shooting judged to be "justifiable" by the local law enforcement.
In every other state (at least as of the last time I looked, years ago), you may be off the hook with law enforcement, but the perp and or his survivors could sue the shooter.
Also with a system of Plaintiff's lawyer(s) working for a cut of the settlement / judgement, but Defense costing hundreds of dollars an hour, even if the shooter wins the civil suit, it often bankrupts them.
What many/most/all of the "make my day" legislation didn't remove civil liability, it only solidified and / or expanded the scope of what's "justifiable."
FWIW
Hell, forget Texas, I'd be willing to bet that's legal almost anywhere (in the US). As far as I'm aware, the real debate is over the use of lethal force when your life is not clearly in danger. For example, if someone broke into your house and was in the process of stealing your DVD player and you, instead of going out the back door, shot him in the head. Of course the problem is that it's hard to tell when your life is "clearly in danger", so it's kind of a hard line to draw...thus the debate.
I'm not really surprised about the civil liability thing. I don't think current laws are picking on any particular advocacy group, there just aren't very many times at all when you're totally off the hook in terms of civil liability. Personally I think civil liability is a BS legal term in any case. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if I didn't break any laws, why should I be liable to anyone? But I'd settle for a nice middle ground, keep civil liability, but make the the loser pay court costs for the other side, automatically, that would help keep harassing cases down.
As for California, don't be too surprised. You'd never know it listening to people rant and "The People's Republican of California", but California has actually been making a lot of excellent steps towards individual freedoms and liberties, across a surprisingly wide political spectrum.
"Oh excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt your robbing me. I'll just go out the back door and wait for you to finish. If you get done before they arrive would you mind terribly to let me know? You see, I have to go to the bathroom in the worst way. Thanks sooo much"
How civilized. :roll:
Save it, Rambo, I didn't say I AGREED with that logic, I'm just saying the same justification doesn't work...and people willing to accept one justification might not accept this one. Using lethal force to defend your life and using lethal force to defend your property are two different ideas. I happen to think both are defensible, but I disagree with the folks who think the same argument can be made for both.
And for what it's worth, unless you moonlight for SWAT, you're an idiot if you choose trying to defend your TV over protecting yourself and your family. Whatever the NRA tells you, the safest thing to do is to try and NOT be in the house with an intruder. Failing that, feel free to shoot him in the face. I know, I know, this goes against the American action movie approach to life, and believe me, I understand where you're coming from. But you're probably not John McClain, and ultimately self-defense is about not taking a trip to the ER.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
Anyone who enters a home to commit a crime and gets shot in the process deserved it ..
The homeowner can use lethal force because the robber is an unknown product.. he could have a gun himself or a bomb or could be a black belt who knocks out the father and then kills the other family members or anything
I hate when liberals get upset when a home invasion criminal gets killed by the homeowner.
If the criminal is outside or just in the garage or in the driveway .. then NO .. they can never be shot.. but IF THEY ARE IN YOUR BEDROOM OR YOUR HALLWAY OR YOUR LIVING ROOM.. then they know what they deserve.
The homeowner can use lethal force because the robber is an unknown product.. he could have a gun himself or a bomb or could be a black belt who knocks out the father and then kills the other family members or anything
I hate when liberals get upset when a home invasion criminal gets killed by the homeowner.
If the criminal is outside or just in the garage or in the driveway .. then NO .. they can never be shot.. but IF THEY ARE IN YOUR BEDROOM OR YOUR HALLWAY OR YOUR LIVING ROOM.. then they know what they deserve.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,251
- 1
- 61
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,251
- 1
- 61
Sure you can. As with this situation, where the criminals were outside and threatened a man with a deadly weapon. He was completely justified in shooting. Now you can't just shoot a guy for being in your yard... but if that guy has a weapon, fire away and make sure your down range is clear.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter