Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Asysin2leads

Texas at it again

Recommended Posts

Okay, first of all, this post will not be about making fun of Texans. Mostly because our good friend Dustdevil is from Texas, so not everyone from there can be bad. That and I've mellowed out a little, and I'm putting to bed my big book of gay cowboy/people who lost to the Mexicans jokes. However, there was this in the news today and it made me wonder a bit:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/...QTfFysZWdGMwfIE

So, Texans have even more excuses to go shooting. Now, instead of slinging lead when someone enters your home, you now can do it if someone is

---Attempting to commit a violent crime such as murder or sexual assault

---Unlawfully attempting to enter a protected place

---Unlawfully attempting to remove a person from a protected place.

And extends this waiver to vehicles and the workplace. I suppose if we wanted to have some fun we could call up a work place in Texas now and tell them we were planning on unlawfully entering dressed as the UPS man, but that wouldn't be cool. Now, also these seem a little vague to me. Sexual assault, after all, can mean anything from what we think of when someone says sexual assault, to something such as forcible kissing. Think of how many times someone has gotten out of line at a bar. Do they deserve a straightening out? Yep. But a shooting? That's a little much. Anyway, that's my two cents.

Without getting into the raging whether to bust a cap or not argument, I think someone should do a study on per capita gun deaths and violent crime rates of Texas and Florida who have enacted similar laws and see what the effect is. I really think it would be interesting. All I can say is Jesus would be very upset with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do not see a problem with this. If this is how Texas chooses to interpret the second amendment, far be it for me to judge. I do not think this applies to shooting a rowdy drunk at a bar. I think this allows for more legal protection of Joe citizen should he/she use lethal force. (Used properly) I agree with your other point however, I think it would interesting to study the states that have similar laws.

Take care,

chbare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, a thread like this is something that makes a foreigner like myself jump. :lol:

I'm really not that familiar with the American mentality towards guns, except from what I've read and seen on TV, but really, do you really, honestly think that the general public should be given the authority to use lethal force? I can see how self-defense can be a valid excuse for accidentally harming your attacker, but to allow people to shoot someone for entering their property or "Unlawfully attempting to enter a protected place"?

Here's where I start babbling about how it is in my country. Please feel free to skip over the rest of the post... 8)

Where I'm from, self-defense is when you use minimum-needed force to defend yourself - if you use a weapon, you better be ready to prove in court that it was bona fide self defense and you did not use excessive force.

...and, for the guns: if the police find a handgun on your person or in your house, you're facing jail time. There are some rare exceptions where individuals have been allowed to possess small handguns, but only long-time active (and must stay active) members of recognized clubs for sport shooting (marksmanship). In those cases, they have to keep their handguns at the club at all times.

Hunting rifles...if you have a license, sure, but there are very strict rules on those - can't even be loaded within city limits. Have to be kept in special gun cabinets.

Automatic or semi-automatic weapons: I believe the police and the coast guard have some, but I don't know anybody who has seen them. An individual possessing those kind of weapons would obviously have to face legal repercussions.

End result: We don't have a military, nor do we need it. Our police do not carry anything stronger than mace and a club (except for the SWAT team, which has firearms), nor do they need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the texas law and I think that it should be expanded to where if you see a violent happening any where you can use deadly force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see the problem either. In fact in OK. have a similar law called "make my day" law, that gives the citizen the right to arm and protect themselves.

I personally carry a concealed weapon (one of course has to go through a course and qualify and be licensed) for that main reason. I have caught robbers in the act of breaking into and robbing my home. I personally would have no problem shooting them and ending their lives. I can assure you, if I had a weapon on me at that time, they would not had been alive today.

Now, you have to remember in rural area, you may call 911 but do to the area covered the response may be up to 40 minutes or more before an officer arrives, if you are even that lucky. It is not like in metro area where there is a cop every 4 to 6 blocks. We have four sheriff deputies covering over 787 square miles... so what do you think your chance is of having an officer rescuing you is?

We have had about a dozen people or more that was shot and was declared justified by this law. Some of the idiots were actually inside the home making threatening gestures. Too bad so sad.. I call it adding to the natural selection committee, of eliminating idiots out there.

Our carjackings have went down as well as some of the violent crimes.. again the adage.. Don't worry about good people with guns. Gang bangers, lower lives will always get and have weapons, it just gives the others the right and protection to have an equal chance.

Nor has there been an increase of shootings of "Billy Bob's" at bars, etc. as gun control activists claim would happen, nor kids accidentally shot from those that were legally carrying and storing a weapon.

Remember, ones that are attempting kidnapping, murder, sexual assault are not doing it because they are nice people. These are violent crimes, and I have no problem ending the situation, nor would I have for any caring citizen that wants to end that situation. The victim would have less harm or loss of life, the state would save tons of money attempting to capture these assailants, court costs, prison costs, less crowding at prison, and then costs on appeals.. etc. No it is not vigilante, they are not seeking justice, just providing protection and action of harmful crimes.

If you are not doing anything wrong, then you don't have to worry. Normal Joe is not going to come after you, the same way as it is now... except if gives the normal Joe some legal protection.

R/r 911

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try to remain as objective as possible. Kristo, the United States has an amendment to our constitution that allows for right to bear arms. The interpretation of this right; however, has been an ongoing debate. I do not think the people of Texas are bloodthirsty vigilantes. However, I think citizens that use force legitimately to protect themselves or others from harm should receive protection under the law. I do not think these laws should allow anybody to shoot somebody for committing a crime. In addition, if force is used, the Texas citizen will still have to prove that the force was justified. In addition to criminal charges the citizen will most likely face civil charges. Even with these laws in place, the use of force will still need to be justified.

Take care,

chbare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the flip side?

If you know that you might be killed by someone in the event you do something outrageously stupid, might that prevent you from doing it in the first place?

Just a thought. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours is a small society (the total population of the country is about 300 thousand) and since we do not have a history of public gun ownership, we have no "tradition" of armed criminals, hence very limited need for armed police (SWAT only, maybe 1-2 calls a year in the whole country).

For those reasons, I do understand how our model would not work everywhere.

However, I still think law enforcement should be left to the police (that includes any protection/defense needed), judging and sentencing should be left to courts and the aftermath to the correction system. Letting any member of the general public buy a gun and be all of those in one person...well, obviously, I must say it wouldn't make me feel any safer.

I see I'm in a minority here, and I probably won't convince anyone, especially given the cultural difference, but I still wanted to put in my 2 cents.

This has a faint start of reminding me of a thread on allowing the general public to listen in on police/FD/EMS radio communications, which we discussed for 5-6 pages on EMT city about 3-4 years ago. Don't see many of the same people here anymore, though. Just RichardB, the EMT and Medic2588 (Devlin, the book promoter :lol:)...and now me again... :wink:

Edit: Removed a potentially "flammable" comment about the jury system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...