| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Nope, the laws are not the same (as Texas laws) in all states. Who said they were???  They should be though. In Minnesota you can not use deadly force to protect property. Not even police officers are authorized to do that. No, but I bet they are authorized to use deadly force in confronting a threatening thief as part of their effort to recover said property or to even take said thief into custody. And as noted above, even Texas law demands reasonable cause to use deadly force in that it allows such a response only in cases where one faces a threat of serious injury absent the use of deadly force. For me the Minnesota law makes more sense than the Texas law. Please do post it so that we can compare the two. This is fun stuff. I'm betting it isn't as different as you imagine. I could be wrong. Without seeing it, there is no way to know. You shouldn't be able to kill people over personal property. Your opinion and way too general. The term "personal property" is WAY too vague. If said "personal property" represents a man's livelihood upon which his entire family and their future depends, the use of deadly force to protect said family is certainly warranted. Or would you prefer to protect the life of a thief and condemn an honest hard working family to bankruptcy and hardship? In Texas we favor the honest hard-working productive family over the thief. We prefer to not relegate our security to being 100% dependent upon the state. Communists like to do that kind of thing. Texans don't. American in general don't. No rational people would ever seek to completely relinquish to the state their right to defend themselves and their property. You should be able to protect yourself from harm and in Minnesota you can. But you shouldn't be able to use deadly force to protect your TV set or even priceless jewels. That kind of thinking leads to people killing each other over a pair of tennis shoes or a five dollar crap game. It leads to jungle law where it's kill or be killed. Who wants to live in a society like that? Who? I'll tell you who, the same scumbag low-lifes who would not think twice about invading your home, raping and murdering your wife and children, and taking all your property leaving you for dead, and most of the drug culture and gang bangers in East LA and other violent criminal-gang infested zones. Your imaginative over-dramatization and exaggeration do not serve any honest discussion of this issue. Conjuring up images of some Mad Max vision of a lawless society of gunslingers and hair trigger murderers is simply absurd and in blatant opposition to our laws including Texas laws. Do you imagine that Texas is comprised of a culture like that which you decribe? The truth is that the out-of-control society that you try to conjure is much closer to the reality of East LA, CA than anywhere in Texas or anywhere in any other state with similar laws on the use of deadly force. In which type of neighborhood would you prefer to live, S. Dallas, or E. LA? Who the hell wants to live in a society that protects its lowest most destructive and dishonest elements over its productive honest ones? Who wants to live in a society that imposes upon its law-abiding members an impotence in the face of criminals? Seriously think about that. Who wants to live in a society where law-abiding citizens are made impotent against defending their homes and property against criminals? If I am able to confront a thief who is making off with my property and said thief then turns and threatens me, I should let him go???? Not in my world. In my world the thief should drop my property and flee in fear of his well being and if he chooses otherwise, I absolutely have the right to use force to defend myself. No, (Texas laws) clearly state "deadly force" may be used to protect property even if the perpetrator is fleeing. But only at "nighttime" which is kind of weird." That is an inaccurate description of Texas law. Try again. "So if somebody breaks into your house at nighttime and is stealing your TV, according to Texas law you are within your rights to put a couple of slugs in their back even if they are unarmed and fleeing the scene (with your TV)." Once again, inaccurate. Try again. "I also believe killing someone to protect personal property is also wrong." Please send to me your home address. I know of some characters who if given the chance will cause you to rethink that view in very short order. "Are you willing to live with the consequences of killing somebody to protect your property?" Yes if when confronted they choose to threaten me. And who the hell are you to decide that for me? Sounds like more of the same, overzealous liberals trying to protect me from me. Please worry about yourself and leave me alone and free to protect my property as I see fit, according to the law. If I break the law, then let justice reign. But do not try to impose your philosophy of pacifism upon me. I reject it. What if it turns out to be a 17 year old kid with some sob story of a broken home, etc.? Would you be able to enjoy watching your TV knowing that you killed somebody just to retain ownership of it? I know I couldn't." Again you don't understand the law. You cannot legally use deadly force against someone just to recover or maintain possession of your TV. There must be a threat to your person involved. What Texas law protects is my right to confront a thief and further that in response to any serious threat then posed by said thief, Texas law allows me to bring to bear any/all appropriate force against said thief. Very very sad that you seek once again to resurrect your bigoted partisan bias in bringing up a bigoted attack upon the "red state moral issues crowd". Here's a news flash for you John... the vast majority of Americans do not hold your pacifist "let the thieves make off with my property" views. You are in the extreme minority fringe on that issue, I guarantee it. It is not a red state or blue state issue. It is relegating the right to protect one's property solely to the state or to law-abiding citizens. It is not immoral to defend your property, your home, your family, or yourself. In fact insofar as a philosophy opposed to defending personal property from theft does indeed only promote MORE criminal activity, I would argue that it is immoral to NOT defend ones property. Is it moral or even lawful to shoot a man in the back fleeing down your street with your TV? No, and no. Please tame your aggressive imagination. Maybe a visit and walking tour of Kilgore, Texas will quell your irrational concerns. | ||
| Outrider |
When you think about it, the States that issue concealed carry permits are exercising extreme gun control by merit of the training and testing (including judicious use) required to obtain one. Take that one step further and you may well find that these same States have harsher penalties for the illegal possession and use of a firearm. That is just a generalization on my part, but I have heard stories from the trainers to this effect. The thing that scares me are the hot heads that are packing illegally that are just itching to defend whatever it is they find so precious. Without the proper training in the civilian sense, as opposed to military sense, a percentage of these folks may have the tendency to over react and get themselves into deep yogurt. One statistic I have yet to find is the number or percentage of gun crimes committed by folks illegally carrying vs legally carrying a gun. Does any LEO or NRA member out there have these stats? If yes, please post them or the website where they can be viewed. Thanks! | ||
| Mutt2jeff |
This doesn't have any statistics for CCW, but it does have self defence statistics and a whole bunch of other goodies. Firearms Facts Provided by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action - NRA-ILA FIREARMS FACTS: GENERAL NUMBER OF Approx. 200 million firearms, GUNS IN U.S.: including 65-70 million handguns GUN OWNERS IN U.S.: 60-65 million, 30-35 million own handguns FIREARMS USED 11% of firearms owners FOR PROTECTION: 13% of handgun owners CRIMINAL MISUSE OF Less than 0.2% of firearms, FIREARMS YEARLY: Less than 0.4% of handguns Over 99.8% of U.S. firearms and 99.6% of U.S. handguns will not be involved in criminal activity in any given year. NRA voluntary firearm safety programs have helped reduce the accidental firearm fatality rate 67% over the last 50 years, while firearms ownership has risen 140%, and handgun ownership has risen 200%. WHY AMERICANS OWN FIREARMS (Based on 1978 Decision Making Information surveys, with handgun data confirmed by 1978 Caddell survey.) Primary Reasons to Own/Use Firearms, Projected Number of Americans (Approx. 60-65 million owners of 200,000,000 or more firearms) HUNTING: 51% 33,000,000 Americans PROTECTION: 32% 21,000,000 " Used Gun for Protection: 11% 7,000,000 TARGET SHOOTING: 13% 8,500,000 COLLECTING: 4% 2,600.000 Primary Reasons to Own/Use Handguns Projected Number of Americans (30-35 million owners of 65,000,000 handguns) HUNTING: 10% 3,500,000 Americans PROTECTION: 58% 21,000,000 " Used Gun For Protection: 13% 4,600,666 " TARGET SHOOTING: 18% 6,300,000 " COLLECTING: 14% 5,000,000 " FIREARMS AND SELF-DEFENSE Survey research indicates that there are more than 2.1 million protective uses of firearms each year, far more than the number of violent criminal gun uses reported by the FBI. Most self-defense uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 0.1% of defensive gun uses is a criminal killed, and in only 1% is a criminal wounded. A Department of Justice-sponsored survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to commit at least one specific crime for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims. U. S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that the protective use of a firearm lessens the chance that a rape, robbery or assault attempt will be successfully completed and also reduces the chance of injury to the intended victim. CRIME RATES LOWER IN STATES THAT ALLOW LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO CARRY FIREARMS States with favorable concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. Overall, the homicide rate for states with favorable carry laws is 31% lower, and the robbery rate is 36% lower, than for states with restrictive concealed carry laws. States which have recently changed their laws have experienced reductions in homicide rates. Since 1987, when Florida enacted a favorable CCW law, its homicide rate has dropped 22%, even while the national rate has risen 15%. Only .007% of Florida CCW permits have been revoked because of a crime after licensure. BIASED MEDIA POLLS DON'T TELL THE REAL STORY Media polls conducted by national polling firms frequently use biased questions and also limit the responses of those questioned. A Luntz Weber Research & Strategic Services poll reflects an accurate view of public opinion, using open ended questions which allow respondents to express their real opinions, rather than be directed toward a desired result. When given the opportunity to freely express themselves, Americans reveal that they do not believe that "gun control" is effective at fighting crime; they prefer criminal justice reform, stiffer penalties, better enforcement and solutions aimed at the core causes of crime. Some of the significant findings of the Luntz Weber survey are: Which of the following proposals do you believe would be more likely to reduce the number of violent crimes? Mandatory Prison 70% More Gun Control 25% What do you think is the most important cause of violent crime in the United States today? Drugs/Alcohol 36% Breakdown of Family Values 13% Poverty 8% Guns 8% Judicial System 5% In your opinion, what do you think is the single most important thing that can be done to help reduce violent crime in the United States today? Preventative programs 30% Prosecution/Penalties 20% Stronger Values 16% Better Enforcement 16% Gun Control 9% Other than for the police and military, all guns should be outlawed. Total Disagree 78% Total Agree 21% Strongly 58% Strongly 14% Somewhat 20% Somewhat 7% 12 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (latest data) ALL CAUSES 2,169,518 Heart Disease 720,862 Cancers 514,657 Strokes 143,481 ACCIDENTS 89,347 Motor Vehicle 43,536 Falls 12,662 Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434 Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685 Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195 Fires and flames 4,120 Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473 Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086 Natural/Environmental factors 1,453 Firearms 1,441 Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650 Pneumonia and influenza 77,860 Diabetes 48,951 Suicide** 30,810 HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555 Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513 Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429 * A Harvard University study suggests 93,000 deaths annually related to medical negligence, excluding tens of thousands more deaths from non- hospital medical office/lab mistakes and thousands of hospital caused infections. ** Approximately 60% involve firearms. *** Approximately 60% involve firearms. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates 1,500-2,800 self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians and 300-600 by police annually. THE REAL CAUSE OF CRIME - AND REAL SOLUTIONS America fails to incarcerate violent criminals. In 1960, 738 criminals were sent to prison for every 1,000 violent crimes, but by 1980, the number of criminals sent to prison per 1,000 violent crimes dropped to 227, and the crime rate tripled. Over 60,000 criminals convicted of violent crime every year _ murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault _ are not sent to prison. Of America's 4.3 million convicted criminals, only 26% are in prison. The remaining 74% are serving "sentences" of parole or probation, free on the streets. Since lower incarceration rates are mostly due to prison overcrowding, CrimeStrike lobbied successfully to increase prison capacity in Texas, Mississippi, Virginia and nearly tripled the funds allocated for state prison construction in the 1994 Federal Crime Bill. Criminals who are incarcerated are freed too early, serving on average only one-third of their sentences. The average time served is: for murder, 7.7 years; rape, 4.6 years; robbery 3.3 years; and aggravated assault,1.9 years. Every day in America, 14 people will be murdered, 48 women raped and 578 robbed by convicted criminals on parole or early release from prison. CrimeStrike helped win passage of Truth-In-Sentencing laws in Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia, preventing early release by requiring violent criminals to serve 85% of their sentences. Additionally, CrimeStrike blocked the paroles of individual murderers in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia. Juvenile crime has reached crisis proportions: Between 1980 and 1990, the number of juveniles arrested for heroin/cocaine rose 713%. Over the last five years, juvenile gang killings increased 208%. Yet only 1.5% of juvenile offenders were sent to adult or criminal court in 1991 and, of those, 85.3% were not sent to prison. CrimeStrike helped win passage of juvenile justice reform in Arkansas and Mississippi, requiring violent juvenile criminals who do "adult crime" to serve "adult time." Crime victims, or their survivors, are often treated as mere witnesses in court, unfairly barred from participating in the criminal justice process in any way. CrimeStrike worked for passage of Victims' Bill of Rights proposals in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri and New Mexico. Repeat offenders are a serious threat to public safety. The average criminal commits 187-287 crimes a year, resulting in over six million people becoming victims of violent crime _ murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault _ every year. CrimeStrike was instrumental in helping Washington State Initiative 593, the nation's first "Three Strike, You're Out" law, qualify for the ballot and then win passage by the largest margin in state history. CrimeStrike also provided grassroots support for the California "Three Strikes" law, which also won at the polls. U.S. COMPARED WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES * All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. (James D. Wright, et. al ., Under the Gun, 1983) "Gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.... Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America; not only does it depend on search and seizure too intrusive for American standards, it postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individual, egalitarian . . . American ethos." (David Kopel, "Foreign Gun Control in American Eyes," 1987) * Gun laws and firearms availability are unrelated to homicide or suicide rates. Most states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to their northern neighbors, despite much higher rates of firearms availability. While the American homicide rate is higher than most European nations, and firearms are frequently involved in American homicides, America's violent crime rates are even higher for crimes where guns are less often (robbery) or infrequently (rape) involved. The difference is violence, not firearms, and America's system of revolving door justice. * England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times as fast as the rise in the U.S. * Japan's low homicide rate is accompanied by a suicide rate much higher than that of the United States, despite Japan's virtual gun ban. And Japan's low crime rate is attributable to police-state type law enforcement which would be opposed by Americans. * Anti-gunners' comparisons of homicide in Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., ignore the fact that non-Hispanic whites have a lower homicide rate in Seattle than in Vancouver, and that Vancouver's homicide rate, and handgun use in homicide, did not go down following Canada's adoption of a "tough" gun law. SEMI-AUTOMATICS & SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" * In a deliberate effort to have public policy made by deception, anti- gunners invented the "assault weapon" issue, noting that the public could not readily distinguish full-auto firearms _ sharply restricted by federal law since 1934 _ from semi-auto firearms. No legally-owned full auto firearm has ever been used in a violent crime by a civilian. Semi-autos are very difficult to convert to full auto and such conversion is a federal felony. Semi-autos which are "easy to convert" are not approved by the BATF for sale to the public. * Data from states and big cities show that military look-alikes constitute 0-3% of guns used in crime and constitute only 1.5% of guns seized by police. Rifles, including semi-autos, are involved in only 3% of homicides. * BATF traces tell nothing about the types of guns used by criminals, since only 1% of guns used in violent crimes are traced, and even that 1% is not randomly selected.(Congressional Research Service) * Anti-gunners' hypocrisy: Claiming that handguns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they have no militia purpose, they support banning rifles and shotguns which do. Their ultimate goal is total gun prohibition. NOTABLE GUN LAW FAILURES Since enacting a virtual handgun ban in 1976, Washington, D.C.'s murder rate has risen 200%, with a 300% rise in handgun-related homicide, as handgun use went from less than 60% of killings to 83%. No gun law in any city, state or nation has ever reduced violent crime, or slowed its rate of growth, compared to similar jurisdictions. With less than 3% of the U.S. population, New York City annually accounts for more than one-eighth of the nation's handgun- related homicides. Since it became a felony to go outside the city to evade its virtual handgun ban, the homicide rate in N.Y.C has risen three times faster than the rest of the country's. Gun rationing schemes have failed miserably. In 1975, South Carolina limited handgun sales to individuals to one per month. Since then, South Carolina's violent crime rate has skyrocketed over 100%. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Like all rights protected by the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms is individually possessed by the American people. The recent concept of a "collective right" is fraudulent because the Framers understood the concept of a "right" to apply only to individuals and used the word "states" when collective meanings were intended. * In 1990, the Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, that the right to keep and bear arms, like rights protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, is an individual right held by "the people," which the court defined as all "persons who are a part of a national community." * The National Guard, established in 1903 and subject to federal control, could not have been the type of body envisioned by the framers, even if the goal were to protect only an organized state militia. Under federal law, the militia consists of all able-bodied males of an age to serve, and some females and older men. (10 U.S.C. .311 and 32 U.S.C. .313) * All five relevant Supreme Court decisions have recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No Supreme Court decision has ever held this right to be "collective." Lower federal courts have been divided on the question. NRA Institute for Legislative Action 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (Message edited by mutt2jeff on November 18, 2004) | ||
| Outrider |
Mutt2Jeff...Thanks for the post. It is indeed good reading. If anyone else has information concerning the subject, please do not hesitate posting it. Incidentally, one thing Jeff's posting mentioned was biased survey or polling techniques. I and everyone I know personally, refuse to complete any polls that are leading and do not offer the choice of answers required to address the subject openly. Quite often these are political polls and a letter to the person or group that commissioned the poll is more appropriate. In essence, you are making your position known and advising that the poll was biased, self serving and not worth responding to in its existing format. Try it some time. You will be amazed at the responses you will get. | ||
| Tramp |
m1 combat- what're you, a limey callin' scatterguns rifles? seriously though- the 870 is wunnerful piece for home defense, but as far as cheapass mud scats, the 500 mossberg kicks ••••. ya see, the big, rattlt tolerances of the action allow for it to operate pretty nicely when icy, muddy or sandy. the 870 will get a stuck slide long before the 500 'mossback'. i had to carry an 870 out in the field for weeks on end, and while i love the weapon, it was just alittle more finicky than i like. kinda like wimminz. you know- there are the ones with the perfect clothes and manicures and makeup that ya like ta look at butcha wouldn' wanna take fishin. that 870 is swell for sitting around your clean apartment awaiting an intruder, but gimme a skanky-••• 500 out in the field, anyday, stinking of that inimitable admixture of hoppes and mud. by the way- that ol' 500 changes barrels in about 12 seconds, which is a helluva lot faster than the rem. why NOt use the same one for 18.5" defense, 28" hunting and maybe keep a slugster bbl. lying around, too? favoutite scatgun, though, hands down: the ithaca hammer-jobs. now that's a good ol' peppermill! | ||
| Tramp |
hey- bear in mind, when viewing those stats, that many, MANY, M A N Y of the gun crimes in this country are committed by nonresident aliens. unfortunately, that little detail doesn't get to the media. just because juan decides that by taking jorge out with his cheesedick li'l 9 he can move more crank, it doesn't mean that american gun owners are killing folks left and right. it DOES pump up the violent gun crimes in america figures, and believe me, juan did NOT get his 9 thru an ffl. | ||
| Rocketman |
have no desire to own a rocket launcher (though I wouln't mind firing one again  -- mad minutes WERE fun!), I think Rocket has missed a point here I think Blake's pic and video clip, and no I didn't watch it, prove otherwise John. No question, firing those weapons was fun, but shooting tin cans can get pretty tedious I imagine, rather like owning a motorcycle but you can't ride it outside of the car park. Shooting tin cans one day, tomorrow the local liquor store? Rocket | ||
| Aesquire |
Sportyeric, I though Canada was to invade us! Some would ask you to, for the benefits I suppose. So, you are proud of the lack of risk to society, with restrictions on drugs & arms? I realize this is an emotional issue, and Statistics & argument will not change your mind, But is the lack of faith the Govt. has in it's citizens truly reassuring? There are sheep, wolves & sheepdogs to protect the sheep. Pick a category to be. Note that the wolves fear & hate sheepdogs. The sheep fear all. M1, The 870 has a wider selection of accessory bits, and is far easier to change magazine capacity than the 500. The 500 is favored by many for it's toughness, and reliability. Both are fine shotguns. I favor the Winchester SX2 over the Bennelli M1, for semi scatterguns, but like the Bennelli a lot too. ( The Winchester is faster, kicks less, and fires a wider range of ammo, The Bennelli is cleaner, almost as fast ( 2-4 millisecs slower, still close to the fastest ) and easier to maintain. ) I also favor a classic Gibson over a new Stratocaster, but thats just my opinion. Rocket, remember, pull the trigger, Don't push the grip....... ( I'm not allowed to joke about deadly force, I did snicker at the attempt to rile things up though. ) (Message edited by aesquire on November 18, 2004) | ||
| M2me |
Is it moral or even lawful to shoot a man in the back fleeing down your street with your TV? No, and no. OK, let's look at the Texas law again.
Notice the law talks about protecting property, not you or your family members. The only time risk of death or injury is mentioned is in 3B but notice that 3A and 3B are either/or. They both don't have to be true. If someone is fleeing with my TV wouldn't I be justified in using deadly force by both 2B and 3A? 1 doesn't matter because Section 9.41 would support my actions too. I am not going to quote 9.41 but you can read it yourself. You talk of the thief turning and threatening you but the law doesn't mention that. Where am I wrong? I still maintain that it's morally wrong to kill someone over property and I mean all property. Take use of deadly force against property crimes to it's logical conclusion. Should we invoke the death penalty for thieves and burglars? We would need to setup killing machines that would make Nazi concentration camps look like Girl Scout run organizations. People steal things everyday. You might want to consider some deadbolt locks and buying some insurance. Holster your weapon. Things people steal can be replaced. | ||
| Tramp |
aesquire- sorry, man- that was me opining 'bout the 500 vs the 870. not m1. you make a very good opoint about swappin magtubes, the mossberg makes it a real clusterf*ck to do, unlike the 870. excellent point that i fergot. | ||
| Unibear12r |
For the past 20 years most of my employment and hobby time (gota call it that, being a cop for no pay) has dealt with local law enforcement, courts and incarceration. The information/viewpoint in the post above is the only one that has ever matched the reality I've seen. If it makes any difference I'm not a NRA member. | ||
| Imonabuss |
Thanks, Mutt2jeff. Too bad the media provides distortion, not facts. | ||
| M2me |
Here is what I have found regarding Minnesota statutes. 609.06 is a long one and I didn't copy it here. It talks about use of reasonable force and does talk about property. Basically, you can use reasonable force to protect property but not necessarily deadly force. 609.065 covers that.
| ||
| Unibear12r |
I've always preferred pistols to boomsticks. I usually did well in quals with the handgun but often dropped a few points with the 870 which was our issue shotgun. Good, reliable weapon though. | ||
| Buells Rule! (Dyna in disguise) |
BTW, the vast majority of burglars are unarmed and do everything they can to avoid encountering the owner. If you do encounter a burglary in progress the vast majority of time the burglar will flee. There are exceptions of course but they are rare, much rarer than most people seem to think. Rare yes but they do happen. Last month a local auot salvage yard owner was notified early in the am that the alarm at his business was going off. The local police do not respond to alarms for whatever reason. Anyways the owner went to his business & ended up confronting a 57 year old burglar in the office, the owner had a shotgun in the office & pulled it on the burglar. A fight ensued & the burglar got the gun away from the owner & then shot & killed him. Now this burglar is claiming self defense. BTW, the entire deal was caught on the security tape at the salvage yard. BTW, anyone ever breaks into my home I would have no qualms at all with putting a couple holes in them. You are in my home & I have no idea if you are armed or what your intentions are. I will protect my wife, kids & grandkids at any & all costs. Hmmm, was he armed? Yes officer look at the knife in his cold dead hand  | ||
| Roc |
http://www.gutterfighting.org/jellybryce.html "In his era Bryce was undoubtedly the FBI's deadliest gun and may have been the best they ever had" Good story. | ||
| Mutt2jeff |
Found some fun videos today. The Glock 18- my mouth waters when i watch this clip. http://www.bsg-dornier.de/schiessen/filme/hsp/glock18_cut.mpg And the Knob Creek machine gun shoot. I have dreams of one day going to this. They are shooting 55 gal. drums filled with diesel fuel, with a stick of dynomite strapped to the front. OH YEAH! Keep in mind that for every tracer you see, there will be 6 rounds you cant see. http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/videos/Machine%20Gun%20Mayhem300.wmv | ||
| CJXB |
I still maintain that it's morally wrong to kill someone over property and I mean all property. I don't feel anyone would kill someone over property, but they would confront them if they are in the home and SHOULD !!! I think if someone is bold enough to enter your home while you are there, when confronted (or not) they certainly will harm you !! Most folks just expect if someone is in their home/property stealing that when you confront them they aren't going to nicely say "oh okay, I'll quit and leave now" !! If everyone felt as you did, then what in the world would stop people from simply entering your home even while you are there and taking what they want when they need it !?? It's simply not reasonable !! As for Rocket's comment about today shooting tin cans and then it's not enough, next the a liquor store, I've known too many folks that shoot tin cans or targets and have for years and have NEVER held up a liquor store !!! Either someone is going to commit a crime or they aren't, and in my opinion owning or not owning a gun has no bearing on that !?? I know WAY more folks who own guns who have never committed a crime than I do those that have !! CJ  | ||
| Phillyblast |
Sean, Does that make tin cans a "gateway drug"? Haven't fired a gun in years, used to be a decent shot, I doubt I could hit the ground now. One of the reasons I don't currently own one. It's my choice to not own one, though, and I don't want anyone taking away that choice. Good luck to anyone that breaks into my house - they have to get past the dog first. | ||
| M2me |
Most folks just expect if someone is in their home/property stealing that when you confront them they aren't going to nicely say "oh okay, I'll quit and leave now" !! As I said before most burglars are just as afraid of you as you are afraid of them. If you encounter a burglary in progress the vast majority of time the burglar will flee. If everyone felt as you did, then what in the world would stop people from simply entering your home even while you are there and taking what they want when they need it !?? It's simply not reasonable !! What stops people from entering my home and taking what they want? Is it because I sit with a shotgun across my lap? No! I believe it's because most people are good and honest. Call me naive if you want to but that's what I choose to believe. Don't you believe that? Don't you want to believe that? Now we've come full circle back to the idea of "packing heat". I choose not to pack heat or sit in my home with a shotgun across my lap because I believe most people are good and are not out to cause me harm. I know there are evil people in this world but I believe they are the exception rather than the norm. As soon as I feel a need to pack heat or sit with a shotgun across my lap I'll reserve the first shell for myself. I know I sound like Tony and Maria from West Side Story or Anne Frank but what is the alternative? Turn on each other in escalating violence and mayhem and murder? I don't want to live in a world like that. | ||
| Aesquire |
It's a situational AND attitudinal issue. Most folk have no need to carry. The crime rate reduction in an armed society is psychological & statistical. As long as the possibility of rational citizens being capable of defending society exists, attitudes are better. "An armed society is a polite society" R.A. Heinlein. The rational fear of feedback is the other reason crime drops. Remove the possibility of feedback, & the system, mechanical or social, breaks down. I alternately laugh & sigh at the "As soon as I feel a need to..... I'll reserve the first shell for myself." It's an emotional state between denial & defiance. sheesh, relax! No ones asking you to guard the castle. Most of the time, you don't have chaos, rioting, and widespread rapine. Thank the Diety of your choice. Enjoy. | ||
| Pdxs3t |
HK USP 40 is what I use to shoot tin cans. http://www.impactguns.com/store/hk_usp40.html | ||
| Blake |
John, "As I said before most burglars are just as afraid of you as you are afraid of them. If you encounter a burglary in progress the vast majority of time the burglar will flee." Where in the hell did you come up with that line of bullshit? Do you have ANY credible evidence to support that? If so please provide it. Good job dodging all my questions. Typical. I do agree that in Texas we can use deadly force against a fleeing thief. Texas is not a good place to be a thief/burglar. This is going to hurt you sorely John, you might want to close your eyes while reading the following... Burglary is a felony. Fleeing the scene with stolen (burgled) property comprises one stage of the act of burglary. It is thus legal in Minnesota to shoot a fleeing burglar as doing so is in good faith "preventing the commission of a felony", namely burglary. Okay, open your eyes now. Again in your imaginative fantasy above you equate having the right to defend property with some kind of Mad Max hell on Earth. Here's the truth. Yes they are a minority. That is a non-sequiter. I rarely crash. I wear a helmet. I strap myself into the car with seat belts. I retain the right to protect myself and my property. The truth is that if criminals knew that they could enter your home with no risk of meeting violent opposition, it is absolutely irrefutably true that crime would skyrocket. We would have chaos. It would be trick or treat every night and we would be at the mercy of thieves. How the hell do you get from discussing the right to defend/protect property to "turning on each other in escalating violence and mayhem and murder"? LOL!!! You sure have a flare for the imaginative and dramatic. LOL!!! Chances are that you will not need to protect your head against impact while riding. I sure hope you won't have to, but if you do, I hope you have a helmet on, otherwise you are likely to encounter serious and undesirable consequences. Chances are you will not need to defend your home against criminal invasion. I sure hope you won't have to, but if you do, it is likely that you will encounter serious and undesirable consequences. The chances for that happening are much much less when criminals know that they may face deadly force opposing their activity. To believe otherwise is naive, irresponsible and frankly just plain foolish. (Message edited by blake on November 19, 2004) | ||
| Blake |
It's a situational AND attitudinal issue. Most folk have no need to carry. The crime rate reduction in an armed society is psychological & statistical. As long as the possibility of rational citizens being capable of defending society exists, attitudes are better. "An armed society is a polite society" R.A. Heinlein. The rational fear of feedback is the other reason crime drops. Remove the possibility of feedback, & the system, mechanical or social, breaks down. I alternately laugh & sigh at the "As soon as I feel a need to..... I'll reserve the first shell for myself." It's an emotional state between denial & defiance. sheesh, relax! No ones asking you to guard the castle. Most of the time, you don't have chaos, rioting, and widespread rapine. Thank the Deity of your choice. Outstanding! Thank you. (Message edited by blake on November 19, 2004) | ||
| Mutt2jeff |
Another fun find. A complete crime statics spreadsheet for you state. I wouldn't recomend trying to hard to read all the numbers, but the graphs are pretty. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=128 | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Sheesh, no wonder you people have more lawyers per capita than anywhere else in the world. By the way Blake I missed a bit of your last post due to reading with my eyes closed.  | ||
| Zip |
Are you guys still ranting about this ???.... My goodness. | ||
| Bomber |
hmmm, the relious nature of this conversation continues, with apostles on both sides repeating their stances louder, with more backup data, and in smaller words, knowing the the nincompoops on the other side of the fence will come around just as soon they shut up and listen -- the most polite large scale gatherings of people I frenquent are at gun and knife shows -- not convinced it's because they are armed (as most are, in fact, not), but that this section of society places more value on a specific slice of behavioral norms than the society as a whole seems to -- Aesquire -- good post, thanks -- not sure about the wisdom of quote an old curmudgeon of a science fiction author as a societal expert, however -- you may wish to find a more objective and better respected commentator on community valules -- like, oh, say, Hunter Thompson -- he's a doctor, after all ;-} | ||
| Benm2 |
Is it time to rename this "political thoughts" and kill it? | ||
| Tramp |
if you kill it, drag it into your house before the heat gets there... |
