When I ride a certain section of trails there are miles and miles of wilderness patrolled by feral hogs. It's technically not legal to carry there without a permit (it's fed property) but I've had cops that cover the area tell me i'd best carry a firearm out of practicality. I usually carry a .45 single action under a vest, and nobody I run into knows it's there, usually including people I'm escorting on my own stock. Have had to use it... As calling 911 to keep a pack of wild hogs from eating your dog would be kinda awkward... Yes ma'am... I need you to send a patrol car. Tell him to exit the road on foot at the second north entrance, follow the path til he hits the shoreline, go south one mile, turn right after the point, go a mile along the slough perimeter, turn right and go to... Oh never mind... The dogs dead now Frankly even in a residential situation calling 911 isn't a lot more helpful if there's someone entering a house with intent to do harm. Fortunately we have a thing called the castle doctrine here... And breaking into a house in this state is a good way to end up on a slab. An intruder has no advantage over even the most petite female that has a 12 gauge mossberg pump in her hands. That's been proven more than once. People that don't own guns benefit from the fact that would be home invasion types don't know which home is inhabited by enlightened gun control advocates who believe it's the job of the government to protect them and which is occupied by us Neanderthals with the archaic idea that we don't need protecting. If there's two houses to choose from, the bad guy would probably pick the one that doesn't have the "protected by Smith & Wesson" sticker if he doesn't wanna exit ducking buckshot. Meanwhile... Liberals continue to think passing laws is the answer. In their reality here is how it would work... If that worked we could solve the problems in Iraq by declaring it a gun free zone. Boy, that'd disarm the bad guys in a heartbeat.
You speak as if shooting someone trying to break into your house will have no legal repercussions later on. Like I said once you pull out a gun you have to have the balls to shoot and face legal repercussions among other things or have the gun taken from you and used on you. Rob, should guns be legal on airplanes?
There is nothing wrong with it, but if you're faced with a semi-automatic weapon a taser is going to be like bringing a plastic butter knife to a fight when your only shot misses. We shouldn't have a level playing field with criminals because there are a few lunatics out there? I do understand but you referred to 9/11, explicitly. That is why my context was about hijacking. The method you're now referring to would need the gunman to be outside the plane, I expect, but I get your point. Americans can't be expected to have their right to bear arms taken because some people wouldn't have the balls to kill when their life is threatened. Are you implying you'd rather die? I'll take the legal repercussions over death, even if it means I only have access to a knife or a baseball bat.
Here's the text of the applicable law, known as the castle doctrine. Intruders get shot by armed homeowners, and the law protects the homeowner that was required to take action. It is usually referred to a grand jury and then dismissed. Sometimes in extremely obvious cases it doesn't even go that far. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm I'd personally rather face a grand jury than be the only guy in the gunfight armed with a knife... Homeowners defend themselves here with firearms as needed, and anyone dumb enough to allow themselves to be disarmed in their own house because they failed to pull the trigger probably only illustrates the principle of natural selection and deserves to be removed from the gene pool. As for planes, an armed sky marshal abroad is a great thing, armed pilots would be even better. I support not allowing the passengers of a plane to be armed, but I have my doubts about explosive decompression being as large a factor as some think. Not an expert on the topic, would have to read up on that part, but bottom line I think armed pilots and sky marshals can use Franconia rounds that will not penetrate the walls of the plane. I do know those exist from reading ammo reviews.
I'm saying owning a gun doesn't make you automatically safe, in some cases puts your life under more threat. There are many other alternatives if one needs to defend themselves. As for level playing field, if someone brings a RPG, you wouldn't suggest we fight him with RPG's do you? I don't think it'd be so easy. People who have received no formal training might end up killing an intruder with one shot, I don't suppose the case will be dismissed just like that then, would it? My point is guns are a dangerous weapon and people with no need for such tools, and ones who have no training to use such tools used for killing shouldn't be handed out firearms as a "right", specially when their are alternatives. I also agree that only pilots and marshals should be allowed firearms on planes. Marshals should have a good background check and pilots should receive formal training. But your point flies in the face of your own arguments. Why shouldn't air travelers have the right to defend themselves on airplanes with guns just the way can in a restaurant with an armed security guard and the police a couple of minutes away?
Yes. It would, especially in Texas, though 31 states have some form of the Castle law including California. As a general rule, you just don't want to let the guy die on your lawn. Need to drag him back inside if necessary. If you are worried about the number of holes in the intruder causing legal issues, don't. Shotguns make lots and lots of holes. I think its reasonable to keep shooting until the intruder is no longer vertical. We know, but thankfully it isn't up to you. In fact, you don't even get a partial say so. You do, however make a good point on training. Most responsible firearm owners already have training, but we should definitely make firearm training more readily accessible.
I'm very surprised you can own a gun in Chicago. I thought it was a city like New York that favoured armed criminals. It's good to hear that's not the case, though.
Just recently. Daley was not a happy camper. Also, the thread title has a funny mistake. I love to bear harms.
Haha I think you're the very first person to notice that Edit: Ummm I just saw this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/12/national/main6670601.shtml Daley and Co. just repealed the supreme court ruling so now Chicago has the toughest hand gun law in the whole of the US :/ Ah come on... What's the point in having a body that interprets the constitution if career politicians can just ignore them? I hope the lawsuits against this succeed.
Here in Kansas, over the last few weeks, three intruders have been shot while invading the homes of three armed citizens, no charges against any of the three home owners have been brought up. Oddly, haven't heard about too many home invasions after that! LOL
Yes, it really IS that easy I gave you a link to the law. Has nothing to do with "one shot"... if the resident has to empty the mag to do the job, not a problem. Neither is killing the intruder. In each of the cases below I quote the consequences for the homeowner as shown in the article. The first gives a synopsis of the Castle Doctrine. -1- Homeowner shoots suspected burglar attempting to kick in back door http://lubbockonline.com/stories/011910/loc_551762211.shtml -2- Intruder shot dead by Lancaster homeowner http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Intruder-shot-dead-by-Lancaster-homeowner-109108069.html -3- Pflugerville man cleared of any wrong-doing in shooting death of 18-year old http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=1283923 -4- Homeowner shoots trespassing thief in the leg http://www.woai.com/news/local/stor...in-the-leg/f3OGiWK3iE6KLbTwmV9-gw.cspx?rss=68 -5- Man killed during South Side home invasion http://www.woai.com/news/local/stor...e-invasion/r8bDn_6Eo06NvtkNIaJr8w.cspx?rss=68 If the circumstances are not clear, the case may be referred to a grand jury to verify, but the law protects a citizen defending their home from criminal OR civil liability. If somebody's looking to start a criminal career, pick a different state. This one would suck. ------------------------- . Untrained? See "5-year-old boy's kill: gator 20 times his size" The 2nd largest gator killed in Texas was taken by a 5 year old boy firing a .410 shotgun. Some of us start learning firearms at a rather young age. I learned to hunt about the same age. Welcome to Texas. Let me join the chorus of those who don't care if YOU approve of OUR rights ... you are not a US citizen. You guys can handle things in India however your government decides you will (since you don't have our Bill of Rights to help safeguard your liberties)... and here we'll keep the rights protected by our constitution. We don't care if you like our way, if it's an issue, don't move here. Simple fix.
What a savings to the taxpayers. No need for a trial, incarceration, repeat offenses, or any of that! Amazing what the removal of such people from a neighborhood does for the quality of life for everyone who remains.
The Castle Doctrine may not be the intended subject of the Thread in respect for the reason to repeal the right to bear arms. Most agree with the Castle Doctrine - the doctrine is not just specific to guns but generally the rights to privacy, ownership, self determination etc. Gun lovers attempt to hijack the doctrine for themselves for their gun rights but not other rights they oppose, as abortion is the reason there is controversy, not with the doctrine but its politicization. The Thread is more about the incident in AZ and the gun lovers insistence on public display of weaponry as a Constitutional right. Parking ones guns outside the city limits or before entering a Church or a Bar or Civic Affairs has always been a part of American history. Many Gun Lovers are of a single minded, broodish / paranoid personality that law abiding people should not have to cope with in public under the threat of violence by their display of weaponry. The above Amendment is a matter of interpretation. Rather than its repeal, "A well regulated Militia" (Militia is capitalized in the constitution) could be interpreted as both a right for the Castle Doctrine and the regulation of weaponry as not to be a public display of intimidation that is the roadway to tyranny our Constitution is specifically written to prevent.
Our Constitution? Which constitution is that? The UK? Ireland? Another non-American turned US constitutional scholar.
Guy is behaving like the typical Tea Partier, anyone who doesn't agree with is asked to show his birth certificate to prove he was born in the country. So now you support handing out guns to children as well. Cool. Where have I seen that irresponsible behavior before? Right! Palestine: Khmer Rouge? Sierra Leone: You are slow, I thought you'd have already figured I was talking about the issue of gun control, which is an issue in most countries. I see my point about guns in planes was ignored, LOL hypocrites!
When you're arguments are rubbish just tell everyone you own them and that they are hypocrites . Anyway :