Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor
[

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

I would argue that the police only decided it was a priority call after the shots were fired.

Your timeline is too short. Cops were on scene 60 seconds after the shots.

If the glove doesnt fit...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is always a danger that some lunatic will go berserk and start killing people with a gun. Is it better he or she do so among people who are armed or people who are not? How many will be killed in the latter case. How many will be shot accidentally in the former stopping the gunman?

You do consider, also I hope, you liberals out there, that the fear of being shot by some mad man is in part a projection of your own self hate as much if not more, really, that that the self hate of some other will lead him actually to kill you. It's interesting, no, that you probably trust yourself with a gun, but not that evil other.

Yeah, we should arm all college kids because once every few years a whacko goes nuts and starts shooting. There's a rational basis for legislation. Let's not consider what happens when college kids, prone to acts of stupidity, get drunk most nights of the week and walk around armed. You've lowered the already remote likelihood a madman will kill 30 people by substituting the possibility of thousands of essentially unsupervised teenagers running around armed. Do you remember college if you went? How many fights there were at bars, school events, and parties? Now add guns.

As to public perception, polls taken after VT showed essentially no movement at all on either side of the gun control debate, i.e. gun control advocates didn't suddenly wake up and realize more guns needed to be in the hands of students to prevent isolated incidents of psychopathy.

Your argument is ridiculous. No one has asked for lowered age requirements for a concealed permit. Therefore no teenagers are going to be 'running around with guns' since, at least as far as I know, you have to be 21 to get a permit. If those people over 21 can get a permit to carry then they can pack everywhere but on campus. If they were going to be a danger they would have done so already in other places...and yet no one has. That means it's not going to occur on campus any more than it occurs anywhere else.

The event did make a difference. At least one political group was formed to represent college students and press for their rights. While it hasn't worked against the mass of ignorance yet, it's still a new movement. I'm confident we'll eventually get things done.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor
[

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

I think the only question here is why didn't the thieves stop when he asked them to?

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor
[

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

I think the only question here is why didn't the thieves stop when he asked them to?

They thought the old guy was bluffing.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor
[

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

I would argue that the police only decided it was a priority call after the shots were fired.

Your timeline is too short. Cops were on scene 60 seconds after the shots.

If the glove doesnt fit...

Its too bad that the old man can't see into the future like you can, otherwise he would have known that the cops would have been there in 60 seconds and he probably wouldn't have shot them.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Nebor
[

Hah, stolen property is very rarely recovered.

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

I would argue that the police only decided it was a priority call after the shots were fired.

Your timeline is too short. Cops were on scene 60 seconds after the shots.

If the glove doesnt fit...

Its too bad that the old man can't see into the future like you can, otherwise he would have known that the cops would have been there in 60 seconds and he probably wouldn't have shot them.

yeah I hear you, sometimes when you are foaming at the mouth to shoot someone it clouds you're judgement :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
I do agree, there are plenty of people who have no business with a gun who I wouldn't be comfortable around if they had one.

My point is the people advocating things like guns on campus (or planes or whatever) are people who own, carry, and use guns proficiently and responsibly for years already, who simply want to extend that right to a few places where it is still restricted where they and their friends are vulnerable. Also the CCW courses required to be licensed to carry concealed on campus act as the filter you desire. The safety principles including quickly drawing from a concealed location, knowing what is behind or around your target, the target qualification scoring, and education on the laws regarding use of force, are all similar if not identical to that which police are required to pass, and are even organized and sponsored by police departments.

Legal carry on campus wouldn't change much. The people who want to carry will if they aren't already. The people who carry illegally already who might use their gun to resolve personal disputes will continue to do so. And gun fearing sheep will be paranoid for about a week before they completely forget their peers are packing heat after subconsciously accepting that their peers aren't killing each other every day as they expected...

Well, at least no more paranoid than they already are right now of who will be the next Seung-Hui Cho, when guns on campus aren't legally sanctioned...

Exposure to violence at some point in ones life and utmost respect and discretion for guns and their legitimate use, and awe and respect of the power to take life is absolutely normal and healthy. Outright fear and paranoia of any and all weapons and denial that violence can and will occur in our society regardless of good intentions, is a psychiatric disorder.

I honestly don't know what the right answer is, but I think the bizarre focus on guns both sides have probably ISN'T the answer to any of these problems. A gun is just a tool, but a lot of folks on both sides of the debate seem to treat it like a magic wand. The VT shooting IMMEDIATELY resulted in hordes of people screaming that the solution is FEWER guns, while an equally vocal horde of people screamed back that, no, the obvious solution is MORE guns.

Personally I think both sides are being stupid. The anti-gun people talk about gun violence as if violence can't happen without a gun, forgetting that not only can bad things happen without firearms, and that keeping guns out of anywhere is pretty difficult in the first place, but that there are many better ways to stop the violence BEFORE it reaches the taking a gun to school stage. And the pro-gun people talk in large generalities, like you are, about respect and discretion and awe and power and courage and all that noise, but at the end of the page, all that gets somehow transfered into a piece of cheap, stamped metal.

Guns are neither the problem, nor the solution. And the obsession everyone seems to have with them is the real psychiatric disorder. I can certainly buy the argument that guns have their place, but they are no the be-all or end-all cause or solution to anything. What everyone on both sides of the debate seems to forget with the VT shooting is that there were tons of opportunities to stop it before it happened if someone had just done the right thing. Nobody needed to install metal detectors around the campus, and nobody needed to start issuing CCW permits to every frat boy who wanted one...neither of which is exactly an ideal solution. Violence is the last option, and while sometimes it's unavoidable, I think people are way too ready to treat it like the ONLY solution. In the end, it doesn't matter which option would work better in a future VT situation, the BEST solution would be the one that identifies and deals with the "crazy" people BEFORE they open fire in a crowded school. Arguing about whether or not we'd be better off if others could join in the shootout seems to miss the point.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bctbct

yeah I hear you, sometimes when you are foaming at the mouth to shoot someone it clouds you're judgement :roll:

Who's foaming at the mouth to shoot someone? If the old man was, don't you think he would have shot them before they even got in the house...

I was responding to this

You seem to like to ignore facts when it suits you.

Fact- Police on the way
Fact- Police arrive 60 seconds after the guys are shot

Stolen property is rarely recovered but because of the unique circumstances in this case, it more than likely than not it would have been. That is the only question here.

Everyone knows that stolen property is rarely recovered, but you're right, if the police arrive 60 seconds after the burglars leave the house, then the property probably would be recovered. Now how would this guy have known that the police were only 60 seconds away? I guess you have never heard the saying, "highsight is 20/20". :roll:

 

[jonks]

Why killing over property is dangerous.

http://www.khou.com/news/local...eofforce.49ded3f4.html

Take Jerry Casey.

One night 13 years ago, he thought a thief was trying to steal his pickup from in front of his home in north Houston.

He got his rifle and fired, killing the man who was in a wrecker and turned out to be a repo man just doing his job.

A grand jury though did not indict Casey, but eight months later, he nonetheless killed himself, citing the repo tragedy in a suicide note.
...
Nixon is a lawyer. He?s also a card-carrying concealed handgun owner and has a company that provides licensed gun owners legal help for $10 a month.

?And if God forbid, you ever have to go to trial, we defend you at trial,? Nixon said.
You can get free advice on his Web site:

Like, ?Do not tell the 911 dispatcher? any details about the shooting because it?s ?being recorded? and will be used ?against you.?

And instructor Smith said, ?If someone breaks into your house, you don?t go hunting for them ? defend yourself if necessary, but hide or run.?


*****************

Oops. He may still walk, prosecutors are still investigating last I read, but I think maybe he shouldn't have said to the 911 dispatcher "I'm gonna kill them."

 

[punkdork9]

The man that did the shooting obviously knew his rights. The Castle Doctrine permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property and the only gray area for that is if it's a neighbor pulling the trigger, he has to have been asked to protect the property. Either way the man who shot the thieves did the right thing. Hell if that happened to my house I would want someone to do the same thing. The men who were robbing the house should have thought twice about stealing from a house, let alone a house in Texas where EVERY house has atleast 2 shotguns.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Why killing over property is dangerous.

http://www.khou.com/news/local...eofforce.49ded3f4.html

Take Jerry Casey.

One night 13 years ago, he thought a thief was trying to steal his pickup from in front of his home in north Houston.

He got his rifle and fired, killing the man who was in a wrecker and turned out to be a repo man just doing his job.

A grand jury though did not indict Casey, but eight months later, he nonetheless killed himself, citing the repo tragedy in a suicide note.
...
Nixon is a lawyer. He?s also a card-carrying concealed handgun owner and has a company that provides licensed gun owners legal help for $10 a month.

?And if God forbid, you ever have to go to trial, we defend you at trial,? Nixon said.
You can get free advice on his Web site:

Like, ?Do not tell the 911 dispatcher? any details about the shooting because it?s ?being recorded? and will be used ?against you.?

And instructor Smith said, ?If someone breaks into your house, you don?t go hunting for them ? defend yourself if necessary, but hide or run.?


*****************

Oops. He may still walk, prosecutors are still investigating last I read, but I think maybe he shouldn't have said to the 911 dispatcher "I'm gonna kill them."

The problem there is a private entity took the law into it's own hands by deciding to trespass on private property, vandalize and break into the vehicle, and steal it.

The company or individual who sent the man to do his job should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter, breaking and entering, etc.

If they had a legitimate case and the vehicles was indeed theirs due to default on a loan, all they had to do was knock on the door during normal DAYLIGHT business hours and announce themselves and request that they be given the keys. If denied, show up with law enforcement escort and a court order. If there is a dispute, the legal term is "stare decisis" meaning "let it stand" that is, the vehicle stays where it is and doesn't move until the court decides, regardless of who rightfully owns it.

Stopping someone in the act on your private property is acceptable. Chasing them on public property in pursuit of your stolen objects is also acceptable. Chasing them into someone else's private property (ie: they take your stuff, run down the street, and enter *their* home) is where the chase stops and law enforce must be brought in.

I draw the line of "taking the law into your own hands" when the pursuit of a thief is no longer on your property or public property, but when you continue chase into private property that is not yours, as you are now trespassing in order to get your property back. Such as the repo man did.

Crappy situation for all, but hardly the norm. As I hinted before, cases of "it was a friend" or "just the repo man" and other similar cases of mistaken identity in a shooting are glorified and made examples by the media to fit their liberal agenda. However cases of justified defense against crime with a firearm outnumber these stories 10000:1 yet passed over or given a token sentence or two in an obscure page in the paper, often not even making the news at all. People love tragedy and controversial issues, so only accidents like that are going to get the news spotlight and be used as fuel for the anti gun agenda.

When was the last time you saw a positive story about guns in the news that encouraged law abiding citizens to consider a gun and training as a viable means of defense, instead of the tired old "use your key chain or cell phone as a blunt object" garbage?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Why killing over property is dangerous.

http://www.khou.com/news/local...eofforce.49ded3f4.html

Take Jerry Casey.

One night 13 years ago, he thought a thief was trying to steal his pickup from in front of his home in north Houston.

He got his rifle and fired, killing the man who was in a wrecker and turned out to be a repo man just doing his job.

A grand jury though did not indict Casey, but eight months later, he nonetheless killed himself, citing the repo tragedy in a suicide note.
...
Nixon is a lawyer. He?s also a card-carrying concealed handgun owner and has a company that provides licensed gun owners legal help for $10 a month.

?And if God forbid, you ever have to go to trial, we defend you at trial,? Nixon said.
You can get free advice on his Web site:

Like, ?Do not tell the 911 dispatcher? any details about the shooting because it?s ?being recorded? and will be used ?against you.?

And instructor Smith said, ?If someone breaks into your house, you don?t go hunting for them ? defend yourself if necessary, but hide or run.?


*****************

Oops. He may still walk, prosecutors are still investigating last I read, but I think maybe he shouldn't have said to the 911 dispatcher "I'm gonna kill them."

The problem there is a private entity took the law into it's own hands by deciding to trespass on private property, vandalize and break into the vehicle, and steal it.

The company or individual who sent the man to do his job should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter, breaking and entering, etc.

If they had a legitimate case and the vehicles was indeed theirs due to default on a loan, all they had to do was knock on the door during normal DAYLIGHT business hours and announce themselves and request that they be given the keys. If denied, show up with law enforcement escort and a court order.

Stopping someone in the act on your private property is acceptable. Chasing them on public property in pursuit of your stolen objects is also acceptable. Chasing them into someone else's private property (ie: they take your stuff, run down the street, and enter *their* home) is where the chase stops and law enforce must be brought in.

I draw the line of "taking the law into your own hands" when the pursuit of a thief is no longer on your property or public property, but when you continue chase into private property that is not yours, as you are now trespassing in order to get your property back. Such as the repo man did.

Crappy situation for all, but hardly the norm. As I hinted before, cases of "it was a friend" or "just the repo man" and other similar cases of mistaken identity in a shooting are glorified and made examples by the media to fit their liberal agenda. However cases of justified defense against crime with a firearm outnumber these stories 10000:1 yet passed over or given a token sentence or two in an obscure page in the paper, often not even making the news at all. People love tragedy and controversial issues, so only accidents like that are going to get the news spotlight and be used as fuel for the anti gun agenda.

When was the last time you saw a positive story about guns in the news that encouraged law abiding citizens to consider a gun and training as a viable means of defense, instead of the tired old "use your key chain or cell phone as a blunt object" garbage?

Repo men are now supposed to ask for the keys to the car? Oy vey. And if the car was in the street (likely) then the repo man wasn't on private property. And your characterization of the repo man "vandalizing and stealing" the car is ridiculous. It was a lawful reposession.

http://www.jthomasblack.com/le...ession-in-texas-9.html
The creditor need not give you any notice of the repossession before they "repo" the collateral. If fact, the creditor is unlikely to give you notice of exactly when or where they intend to pick up the collateral, because they're concerned that you'll hide it or otherwise keep it from them...
It's not necessary in Texas for a creditor to get a court order before repossessing collateral. That is, they can use self help, by picking up the vehicle themselves or having a repo company do it for them. This is the most common way creditors repossess vehicles in Texas
*************

Claro? Breaking and entering/ involuntary manslaughter for the repo company...jesus. After all the support you've thrown behind having the right to KILL someone who tries to steal a neighbor's property, you have a problem with a company lawfully and legally using non-violent means to repossess property in default?? At least make some effort to be consistent.

As to your implication that this rarely happens, how about the fact that it doesn't need to happen at all? The reason such "accidents" are glorified as you say, is because it is a bigger deal when an innocent person is wrongly blown away than when a criminal is. Nobody needs to die over property. This has been argued for pages so I'll chalk it up to a fundamental philosophical disagreement and drop it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: punkdork9
The man that did the shooting obviously knew his rights. The Castle Doctrine permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property and the only gray area for that is if it's a neighbor pulling the trigger, he has to have been asked to protect the property. Either way the man who shot the thieves did the right thing. Hell if that happened to my house I would want someone to do the same thing. The men who were robbing the house should have thought twice about stealing from a house, let alone a house in Texas where EVERY house has atleast 2 shotguns.

You know, this whole thing might be a little less divisive if you people weren't so gleeful about killing people. It's not a videogame, it's real life. And in real life, normal people don't cheer for death...even if the dead person in question is a bad guy. It might be sometimes necessary, but only a sociopath gets their rocks off talking about it.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Claro? Breaking and entering/ involuntary manslaughter for the repo company...jesus. After all the support you've thrown behind having the right to KILL someone who tries to steal a neighbor's property, you have a problem with a company lawfully and legally using non-violent means to repossess property in default?? At least make some effort to be consistent.

Just as an aside, people repossessing cars in Texas are considered car thieves under the law until they have the car in their possession and off your property. There are several shootings a year related to this.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Repo men are now supposed to ask for the keys to the car? Oy vey. And if the car was in the street (likely) then the repo man wasn't on private property. And your characterization of the repo man "vandalizing and stealing" the car is ridiculous. It was a lawful reposession.

http://www.jthomasblack.com/le...ession-in-texas-9.html
The creditor need not give you any notice of the repossession before they "repo" the collateral. If fact, the creditor is unlikely to give you notice of exactly when or where they intend to pick up the collateral, because they're concerned that you'll hide it or otherwise keep it from them...
It's not necessary in Texas for a creditor to get a court order before repossessing collateral. That is, they can use self help, by picking up the vehicle themselves or having a repo company do it for them. This is the most common way creditors repossess vehicles in Texas
*************

Claro? Breaking and entering/ involuntary manslaughter for the repo company...jesus. After all the support you've thrown behind having the right to KILL someone who tries to steal a neighbor's property, you have a problem with a company lawfully and legally using non-violent means to repossess property in default?? At least make some effort to be consistent.

As to your implication that this rarely happens, how about the fact that it doesn't need to happen at all? The reason such "accidents" are glorified as you say, is because it is a bigger deal when an innocent person is wrongly blown away than when a criminal is. Nobody needs to die over property. This has been argued for pages so I'll chalk it up to a fundamental philosophical disagreement and drop it.

I don't see any difference with my stance. It's simply called trespassing on private property and applies to everyone equally.

Someone in your house stealing your stuff, is trespassing.

You chasing a thief into a private residence after he leaves both your property and public property, is trespassing.

Regardless of possession of stolen property or not, you do not trespass in your pursuit of it, and the same goes for repo men. One principle for everyone.

And no, they don't HAVE to announce their presence, but it's preferable to getting shot and being mistaken for a burglar at 3 am.

There is no need to be sneaky or concerned about someone hiding collateral, as if the company is in the legal green, a court can have the person arrested and jailed until they surrender the collateral or provide an alternative of equal value (even garnished wages). Having to be sneaky about it is shady and would suggest that the company is not entirely clear of it's legal standing.

Trespassing to recover property is taking the law into your own hands. The chase ends at someone elses private property boundary, and the same goes for repo men and such. When you defend yourself or use physical force to recover stolen property in your home or in public places, you are not breaking the law as it pertains to use of force to stop a crime in progress or protect persons or property. However if you have to trespass, you end up breaking a law in order to exercise a law, basically picking and choosing at that point and making up whats legal on the fly, hence why it's called taking the law into your own hands only at that point.

And even if it's parked on a public street, it's still not a good idea to be silently snooping around and breaking into cars in the middle of the night and very few people are going to disagree with that sentiment.

(PS: it's assumed that that in this case that permission was given or implied by the neighbor in much the same way that coming and going freely at your parents house is implied. A simple "could ya keep an eye on my house while I'm gone" is explicit permission to enter the property for the purpose of protecting it without constituting trespassing)

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: punkdork9
The man that did the shooting obviously knew his rights. The Castle Doctrine permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property and the only gray area for that is if it's a neighbor pulling the trigger, he has to have been asked to protect the property. Either way the man who shot the thieves did the right thing. Hell if that happened to my house I would want someone to do the same thing. The men who were robbing the house should have thought twice about stealing from a house, let alone a house in Texas where EVERY house has atleast 2 shotguns.

You know, this whole thing might be a little less divisive if you people weren't so gleeful about killing people. It's not a videogame, it's real life. And in real life, normal people don't cheer for death...even if the dead person in question is a bad guy. It might be sometimes necessary, but only a sociopath gets their rocks off talking about it.

It's not about cheering a death, I don't think anyone here is dancing because two men died. It's about cheering for a victory siding with the right to defense of self and property in the face of increasingly liberal social policies that attempt to deprive people of those rights.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: punkdork9
The man that did the shooting obviously knew his rights. The Castle Doctrine permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property and the only gray area for that is if it's a neighbor pulling the trigger, he has to have been asked to protect the property. Either way the man who shot the thieves did the right thing. Hell if that happened to my house I would want someone to do the same thing. The men who were robbing the house should have thought twice about stealing from a house, let alone a house in Texas where EVERY house has atleast 2 shotguns.

You know, this whole thing might be a little less divisive if you people weren't so gleeful about killing people. It's not a videogame, it's real life. And in real life, normal people don't cheer for death...even if the dead person in question is a bad guy. It might be sometimes necessary, but only a sociopath gets their rocks off talking about it.

It's not about cheering a death, I don't think anyone here is dancing because two men died. It's about cheering for a victory siding with the right to defense of self and property in the face of increasingly liberal social policies that attempt to deprive people of those rights.

Maybe you're not, but a lot of people are. The focus of much of this thread has been on the death of the two criminals as much as it has been on the idea of defending your property. Had the two bad guys been only wounded, or just driven off, I doubt there would be such strong feelings on EITHER side. The issue is very much about death, just as much as it's about self defense.

And by the way, your crusade against "liberal social policies" is pretty misguided. In the first place, gun nut ranting to the contrary, there is very much an INCREASE in self defense rights over the past several years. The right to own, carry and use a gun for self defense has been becoming more and more of a right in more and more places. You are not the brave Spartan struggling against the hordes of "sheep" depriving you of your rights, as appealing as that fantasy might be.

But in the second place, gun rights and self defense rights ARE a liberal issue, or at least they should be. Conservative social views, for the most part, focus on increasing government control and less personal freedom and fewer personal rights...while liberal views tend to be the opposite. Gun control and self defense have, for some reason, been ignored by modern liberals, but that doesn't change the fact that the right to defend yourself and the right to own the means to do so, are fundamentally aligned with liberal philosophy...if only certain liberals would wake up and realize that. I consider myself pretty liberal, and I'm behind the right to self defense...and I know I'm not the only one.

Edit: Actually, I take that back, about liberal vs conservative issues. I think self defense and gun rights are one of the few issues that transcends political boundaries, and I think it's a mistake calling either issue a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. And for what it's worth, I think conservatives who support self defense and gun rights would get a lot farther if they didn't treat it like it's "their" issue. Like I said, I'm a liberal who supports both rights, but sometimes it's kind of tough.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: punkdork9
The man that did the shooting obviously knew his rights. The Castle Doctrine permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property and the only gray area for that is if it's a neighbor pulling the trigger, he has to have been asked to protect the property. Either way the man who shot the thieves did the right thing. Hell if that happened to my house I would want someone to do the same thing. The men who were robbing the house should have thought twice about stealing from a house, let alone a house in Texas where EVERY house has atleast 2 shotguns.

You know, this whole thing might be a little less divisive if you people weren't so gleeful about killing people. It's not a videogame, it's real life. And in real life, normal people don't cheer for death...even if the dead person in question is a bad guy. It might be sometimes necessary, but only a sociopath gets their rocks off talking about it.

It's not about cheering a death, I don't think anyone here is dancing because two men died. It's about cheering for a victory siding with the right to defense of self and property in the face of increasingly liberal social policies that attempt to deprive people of those rights.

Maybe you're not, but a lot of people are. The focus of much of this thread has been on the death of the two criminals as much as it has been on the idea of defending your property. Had the two bad guys been only wounded, or just driven off, I doubt there would be such strong feelings on EITHER side. The issue is very much about death, just as much as it's about self defense.

And by the way, your crusade against "liberal social policies" is pretty misguided. In the first place, gun nut ranting to the contrary, there is very much an INCREASE in self defense rights over the past several years. The right to own, carry and use a gun for self defense has been becoming more and more of a right in more and more places. You are not the brave Spartan struggling against the hordes of "sheep" depriving you of your rights, as appealing as that fantasy might be.

But in the second place, gun rights and self defense rights ARE a liberal issue, or at least they should be. Conservative social views, for the most part, focus on increasing government control and less personal freedom and fewer personal rights...while liberal views tend to be the opposite. Gun control and self defense have, for some reason, been ignored by modern liberals, but that doesn't change the fact that the right to defend yourself and the right to own the means to do so, are fundamentally aligned with liberal philosophy...if only certain liberals would wake up and realize that. I consider myself pretty liberal, and I'm behind the right to self defense...and I know I'm not the only one.

Edit: Actually, I take that back, about liberal vs conservative issues. I think self defense and gun rights are one of the few issues that transcends political boundaries, and I think it's a mistake calling either issue a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. And for what it's worth, I think conservatives who support self defense and gun rights would get a lot farther if they didn't treat it like it's "their" issue. Like I said, I'm a liberal who supports both rights, but sometimes it's kind of tough.

In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote powerful authoritative government, weak national defense, enforcement of economic equality, support of socialist/communist economic policies that take from the working and give to the non working on the basis of need rather than merit, promote reliance on government rather than the private sector (which empowers government to justify doing yet more and more as people learn to expect more and more), etc. Of course part of "reliance on government" means disarming the public and conditioning them to the philosophy that only the government can do those things.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer free markets, minimum non interfering government, individual choice and responsibility, and the absolute right to private property and the fruits of ones labor, and willingness to accept the risk inherent to absolute freedom in that some will abuse their unsupervised freedom to prey on others. (obviously many so called conservatives in our government are not). The ability to defend property relies upon the means to do so, and free markets means free markets (ie: even guns are free market items for those who wish to have them).

You are right though, liberal ideology has brought about many improvements in the way of things as civil rights, equal treatment, etc. But now days it seems to be more about absolute control and a push for communist economic ideology, which I vehemently disagree with. Pacification and subjugation to authority are big parts of this ideology and is extremely popular amongst left wing politicians. Equality in opportunity, chance, and treatment is an ideal thing to strive for. Guaranteed economic equality, however, is not.

You know how many people ask me if I'm a cop when they see I am carrying a gun, despite the fact that Arizona is not only pro gun but a no permit open carry state? What is with the "you must be some kind of authority figure to have a weapon" mentality and the total shock that a mere civilian, a peon, can own and carry weapons without being either a criminal or a police officer? I'd say thats a liberal influence, being that it's democrats and liberals that typically want to ban civilian gun ownership and insist only police should have them.

Just because gun and self defense rights have recently started to reassert something that Constitution already clearly states, doesn't mean we should be complacent. Much momentum is needed to combat the onslaught of "guns=crime" propaganda originating from the schools and the media. Until a random person on the street can see that I have a gun and not give it any more thought than one would a cell phone or a rabbits foot, I will continue to promote my views.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: exdeath
You know how many people ask me if I'm a cop when they see I am carrying a gun, despite the fact that Arizona is not only pro gun but a no permit open carry state? What is with the "you must be some kind of authority figure to have a weapon" mentality and the total shock that a mere civilian, a peon, can own and carry weapons without being either a criminal or a police officer? I'd say thats a liberal influence, being that it's democrats and liberals that typically want to ban civilian gun owner ship and insist only police should have them.

When someone spots your gun (whether open or concealed carrying) and asks, "Are you a cop?" The best response is: "Why, you breakin' the law?"

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: exdeath
You know how many people ask me if I'm a cop when they see I am carrying a gun, despite the fact that Arizona is not only pro gun but a no permit open carry state? What is with the "you must be some kind of authority figure to have a weapon" mentality and the total shock that a mere civilian, a peon, can own and carry weapons without being either a criminal or a police officer? I'd say thats a liberal influence, being that it's democrats and liberals that typically want to ban civilian gun owner ship and insist only police should have them.

When someone spots your gun (whether open or concealed carrying) and asks, "Are you a cop?" The best response is: "Why, you breakin' the law?"

Nah, I try to just be as informative and nice as possible. I'd rather not be a smart ass and potentially paint a negative stereotype for someone who might be voting for Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. who might be emotionally tempted by the pictures they paint of "guns on our streets=blood flowing like rivers from every school" without any opposing examples of peaceful citizens.

Also not only do you get into sketchy water with impersonating an officer if you allow that to be implied with a statement like that, it also takes away from an opportunity to impress in peoples minds that ordinary people, anybody, can own a weapon, and that it doesn't have to be used for crime or only by cops.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote powerful authoritative government, weak national defense, enforcement of economic equality, support of socialist/communist economic policies that take from the working and give to the non working on the basis of need rather than merit, promote reliance on government rather than the private sector (which empowers government to justify doing yet more and more as people learn to expect more and more), etc. Of course part of "reliance on government" means disarming the public and conditioning them to the philosophy that only the government can do those things.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer free markets, minimum non interfering government, individual choice and responsibility, and the absolute right to private property and the fruits of ones labor, and willingness to accept the risk inherent to absolute freedom in that some will abuse their unsupervised freedom to prey on others. (obviously many so called conservatives in our government are not). The ability to defend property relies upon the means to do so, and free markets means free markets (ie: even guns are free market items for those who wish to have them).

You forgot that conservatives shit ice cream and liberals torture puppies at parties.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote powerful authoritative government, weak national defense, enforcement of economic equality, support of socialist/communist economic policies that take from the working and give to the non working on the basis of need rather than merit, promote reliance on government rather than the private sector (which empowers government to justify doing yet more and more as people learn to expect more and more), etc. Of course part of "reliance on government" means disarming the public and conditioning them to the philosophy that only the government can do those things.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer free markets, minimum non interfering government, individual choice and responsibility, and the absolute right to private property and the fruits of ones labor, and willingness to accept the risk inherent to absolute freedom in that some will abuse their unsupervised freedom to prey on others. (obviously many so called conservatives in our government are not). The ability to defend property relies upon the means to do so, and free markets means free markets (ie: even guns are free market items for those who wish to have them).

You are right though, liberal ideology has about about many improvements in the way of things as civil rights, etc. But now days it seems to be more about absolute control and a push for communist economic ideology, which I vehemently disagree with. Pacification and subjugation to authority are big parts of this ideology and is extremely popular amongst left wing politicians. Equality in opportunity, chance, and treatment is an ideal thing to strive for. Guaranteed economic equality however, is not.
...

Bullshit, and that's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Your ridiculous characterization is based on "conservative" fantasy, not reality. And reiterating it and using it as support for conservative attempts to steal the right to self defense issue is EXACTLY why it's so difficult for folks like me to support those ideas. Like I said, I'm all for gun rights and self defense, but when someone like you starts pontificating about how only conservatives want freedom, I want to vote for laws that prevent you from being armed with so much as a butter knife.

Because I got to tell you, nobody respects freedom like conservatives. You know, unless you're gay, non-Christian, Arab, or just someone who likes civil liberties NOT contained in the 2nd amendment. And if you think that's an unfair characterization of your views, good...that means you're getting my point. Real life isn't the silly-ass ideological struggle you think it is, there are plenty of liberals who like the idea of personal freedom and a metric shit-ton of conservatives who don't. Reality isn't so black and white, and treating it that way is one of the reasons this country is as divided as it is.

 

[exdeath]

More like conservatives act like liberals wanting to increase government and control everything with more bureaucracy and economic intervention, and liberals act like full out communists wanting to nationalize everything and shelter people from their own poor economic choices.

Those were fundamental declarations of associated ideologies. That doesn't mean the people who call themselves liberal or conservative actually follow their own ideology.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the present sense "liberal" is construed as emphasis on policies that promote powerful authoritative government, weak national defense, enforcement of economic equality, support of socialist/communist economic policies that take from the working and give to the non working on the basis of need rather than merit, promote reliance on government rather than the private sector (which empowers government to justify doing yet more and more as people learn to expect more and more), etc. Of course part of "reliance on government" means disarming the public and conditioning them to the philosophy that only the government can do those things.

Conservatives in the modern sense, prefer free markets, minimum non interfering government, individual choice and responsibility, and the absolute right to private property and the fruits of ones labor, and willingness to accept the risk inherent to absolute freedom in that some will abuse their unsupervised freedom to prey on others. (obviously many so called conservatives in our government are not). The ability to defend property relies upon the means to do so, and free markets means free markets (ie: even guns are free market items for those who wish to have them).

You forgot that conservatives shit ice cream and liberals torture puppies at parties.

Hey, at least he didn't pull out that old gem about how conservatives are more authentic Americans because they drink Coors beer instead of Napa Valley wine.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: exdeath
More like conservatives act like liberals wanting to increase government and control everything with more bureaucracy and economic intervention, and liberals act like full out communists wanting to nationalize everything and shelter people from their own poor economic choices.

Those were fundamental declarations of associated ideologies. That doesn't mean the people who call themselves liberal or conservative actually follow their own ideology.

Whatever you say, chief. Clearly you live a rich fantasy life, and your ideology is extremely important in defining who you are. Why it can't be your own individual ideology instead of some mass-market bullshit is beyond me, but it's a common enough affliction. Not everyone has the balls to actually think for themselves.

But I will say this, I consider myself pretty liberal on many issues, but I'm still for the right to self defense and I'm still opposed to gun control. I see no ideological conflict with this, real life is complicated, and not every issue can be solved by easy application of some bumper sticker philosophy. If that idea doesn't fit with your cartoon version of the world, there's not a lot I can do.

Edit: I won't delete what I said above, but I didn't see that second part when I wrote it. Mostly because it should be obvious the nerve you touch saying stupid-ass stuff like that, which was the only point I was trying to make. Whether you like it or not, those words mean different things to different people, and trying to paint every issue in broad generalities is bound to result in problems.