Owner shoots bad guys trying to steal 4Runner

[Thai]

LOL that is why I carry SIG SAUER

Yup, P239...old reliable...9mm Winchester PDX1 147 gr.

 

[Thai]

Now if we could just weed out the liberals this would be the greatest state in the Republic!

Sorry dude, you have a long way to go before dethroning Texas!

 

[beerstash]

Not sure if Texas' "Castle law" applies to their vehicle. In GA, one can shoot a carjacker if inside the car while it's happening since it's an extension if that law wasn't changed last year. But last I checked, Texas still is second to GA on Death Penalty executions.

 

[bofa]

Not sure if Texas' "Castle law" applies to their vehicle. In GA, one can shoot a carjacker if inside the car while it's happening since it's an extension if that law wasn't changed last year. But last I checked, Texas still is second to GA on Death Penalty executions.

It does, actually... where do you think Florida got it from? :reddance:

 

[Stifler]

Sorry dude, you have a long way to go before dethroning Texas!

Can't hate us for trying! GOD BLESS AMERICA! and AR15s!:uzi::cowboy:

 

[phillyd2]

It does, actually... where do you think Florida got it from? :reddance:

Ha Ha. The same place PA got it from. :clap2:

 

[H2O_Doc]

I, nor anyone else, changed the argument. As there were very few details in the original post this debate was not constrained to go in a specific direction largely in part of the generality of the story. There is no specific issue other than a bad guy got killed doing something wrong by the owner of the property in question. Based on that statement, with no real detail, this debate can go .

Correct about the original post, but in the thread above my post, instances that are much more black and white are posted to reframe the argument into a scenario where there is little ambiguity and not much choice (or reasonably so).

My point is where the margin is, and when do the circumstances warrant or excuse things like lethal force. I whole heatedly believe that there is an appropriate time for it. if you do use lethal force (or try to) you should be aware of the context and consequences. I think there is room for that discussion and in our jolliness to assert our right, we need to recognize that under some circumstances there might be the issues I alluded to.

 

[KCcarguy]

Correct about the original post, but in the thread above my post, instances that are much more black and white are posted to reframe the argument into a scenario where there is little ambiguity and not much choice (or reasonably so).

My point is where the margin is, and when do the circumstances warrant or excuse things like lethal force. I whole heatedly believe that there is an appropriate time for it. if you do use lethal force (or try to) you should be aware of the context and consequences. I think there is room for that discussion and in our jolliness to assert our right, we need to recognize that under some circumstances there might be the issues I alluded to.

I agree. But I'm glad there is a sytem that allows NRA to have choice instead of laws that demand I flee or put the burden on the initial victim.

 

[H2O_Doc]

I agree. But I'm glad there is a sytem that allows NRA to have choice instead of laws that demand I flee or put the burden on the initial victim.

Well, that seems reasonable and from what I know of you, you're house wouldn't make it near my short list for places to enter without an invitation : )

Doc don't like getting perforated.

 

[Thai]

Again, not the issue I was addressing.

For me, what is confusing about your stance is what you write. For example, in the other thread ("Hypocrisy at its worse (rant warning)"), you wrote about wanting more laws in place to limit guns. Yet, when confronted with clear cut evidence that more laws don't do jack and with what the Constitution has stated, you seemingly agreed...and that you agreed that enforcing the existing laws is what we need to do. You claim to be a big supporter of the Constitution, right? Yet, in that thread, you kept on with the wishy-washy statements over and over again and pushed against the Constitution while "defending" it.

And here, you're doing the same thing...you kinda slowly wedge yourself into this thread being neither here nor there. I think that it is you who is taking this thread off-topic more than anyone else. I don't understand your position given the original storyline.

Look, everyone here knows my stance on various issues. My stance is consistent whether it be iPhones or cameras or guns or 4runners. I just don't get some folks that "try" to make themselves look neutral by faking it. Why?? RonMaiden is another one. I have had many battles with Koz...but, at least with him, i KNOW his viewpoints because he comes out and says it. Just come out and say it. Why use this passive aggressive-type style in discussions? We're not here to judge you...it's the internet!

 

[KidVermicious]

doesn't make a difference.... dont take sh1t that isnt yours and you wont get shot! plain and simple

big difference... petty theft and strong armed robbery/breaking an entering are quite different. Your vehicle and home are your "Dwelling" and you are afforded the right to protect your property.... retail stores do not fall into that category... the only time they are afforded the same protection is if it is ARMED robbery

Hang on a second, keyboard hero - which is it, no difference or big difference?

Because that's the point of my snickers-stealing hypothetical. If you're going to advocate killing somebody because they're trying to take something that isn't theirs, stick to your guns (get it? ha! ). Because what if it's a 10 year old who snags your Diet Coke from your table at McDonalds? What about a 15 year old who grabs your wife's purse? What if they're a 70 year old man with Alzheimers who thinks that cell phone is theirs?

What if it's a 24 year old kid in blue jeans and a hoodie that hasn't shaved in three days and is suffering from dementia and thinks he's in his own house? How are you going to know before you pull your righteous trigger that he's not there to steal your DVD player, hero?

As far as I'm concerned, the only time time it's ok to kill another person is in defence of innocent lives (your own or others), and anybody claiming otherwise is either full of internet bluster or has definite sociopathic tendencies. I'll go one further and say that the talk in this thread of defending "property" with lethal force will probably end up as anti-gun propaganda on another board - the libs have trolls that run around looking for exactly this kind of conversation and will use it against pro-gun advocates on other boards, I've seen it before. I'm about as pro-gun as it gets, and I'm telling you all now this kind of talk isn't helping. It's irresponsible and juvenile and I'm disgusted by it.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a fight, and I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But please, guys, think about what you're saying. Even talk on the internet has consequences.

 

[Thai]

As far as I'm concerned, the only time time it's ok to kill another person is in defence of innocent lives (your own or others), and anybody claiming otherwise is either full of internet bluster or has definite sociopathic tendencies.

Yup, i agree. I wrote this early in the thread:

But, back on topic...i would NOT shoot these dumba$$es trying to steal my car. Too much risk. I would reserve my 9 lives to shooting someone to defend my life and/or my family's.

But then again, maybe its because i own a Prius and a minivan...they can have it! I will even give them the keys!

Guys, do NOT pull the gun out of the holster for anything less than defending yourself or your family's life. I will also say that I am not a cop...nor do i want to pretend to be one. I carry daily to protect me and my family. Don't expect me to go out of my way to protect someone else. Unless a rape or murder is happening right in front of me, that person is on his own. I will call 911 and report it...but my priority is to get my butt and my family out of harm's way. Simple as that.

 

[H2O_Doc]

I never advocated more gun control. I acknowledged that there is some limit to the 2nd amendment and that gun laws should not violate the boundaries of it. Within the boundaries, I took issue with arguments made based on logical fallacies or inconsistencies; this as part of a conversation. Again, I did not propose more gun control and supported the notion of enforcing current gun laws first and foremost.

For the current thread, my point is that (under plausible circumstance) sanctions delivered at the point of a gun could have constitutionally relevant implications if made a matter of law or routine use. I never suggested that a person in imminent peril need wait for law enforcement nor constitutional clarification.

 

[bofa]

What if it's a 24 year old kid in blue jeans and a hoodie that hasn't shaved in three days and is suffering from dementia and thinks he's in his own house? How are you going to know before you pull your righteous trigger that he's not there to steal your DVD player, hero?

And what if he wanders into a bear's den? I can do "what if's" too.. but if the law allows for lethal force, I'm not calling in a psych eval before using it.

 

[1engineer]

For me, what is confusing about your stance is what you write. For example, in the other thread ("Hypocrisy at its worse (rant warning)"), you wrote about wanting more laws in place to limit guns. Yet, when confronted with clear cut evidence that more laws don't do jack and with what the Constitution has stated, you seemingly agreed...and that you agreed that enforcing the existing laws is what we need to do. You claim to be a big supporter of the Constitution, right? Yet, in that thread, you kept on with the wishy-washy statements over and over again and pushed against the Constitution while "defending" it.

And here, you're doing the same thing...you kinda slowly wedge yourself into this thread being neither here nor there. I think that it is you who is taking this thread off-topic more than anyone else. I don't understand your position given the original storyline.

Look, everyone here knows my stance on various issues. My stance is consistent whether it be iPhones or cameras or guns or 4runners. I just don't get some folks that "try" to make themselves look neutral by faking it. Why?? RonMaiden is another one. I have had many battles with Koz...but, at least with him, i KNOW his viewpoints because he comes out and says it. Just come out and say it. Why use this passive aggressive-type style in discussions? We're not here to judge you...it's the internet!

Hey Thai, I think the word you are looking for is "vacillate." Brought to you by the letter "V". I have a huge vocabulary but I can't pronounce 1/3 of it lol.

 

[the great him]

"i feel like im dying"... maybe because you are...

 

[beerstash]

When a person states its okay to kill to save lives but not stealing one's car, he's not going to drive off like Ms Daisy. Or use it in the comission of another crime and end up killing someone with your vehicle. I'm just sayin...stop enough "small" problems, the less bigger problems we will have.

 

[Thai]

I never advocated more gun control. Again, I did not propose more gun control and supported the notion of enforcing current gun laws first and foremost.

Actually, you ONLY supported the notion of enforcement of existing laws AFTER i brought out the facts.

From the other thread...

You must also know that the regulating of guns (what we call gun control) has a long history of acceptance in the U.S. and that we as a nation have never been singularly of the mind that the 2nd gives every person the right to own any firearm of their choosing.

But gun control and gun laws don't necessarily equate to a wholesale ban on ownership (some would like to scare you into believing they are the same). Don't confuse the issues. Should any person be able to own any weapon of their choice? I think most people would think that absurd. I also think most people would think it unacceptable to ban all firearms. The question is what are prudent and appropriate limitations and what is the role of the federal versus state government in regulating ownership, with due recognition of the Constitution?

A couple of points: It is possible to be a "pro 2A" gun owner like myself and be in favor of prudent gun control measures that are non- violative of the second amendment.

In my opinion, the right amount is that which is (first) non-violative of the 2nd Amendment, but which offers the voting populace the means to limit the availability (note that I didn't say use) of certain arms or their performance in support of the public welfare. What the specifics would be I cannot say.

As for your question about what arms should law abiding citizens be allowed to own, I don't know. I take a more expansive and inclusive view.

It is in this approach that we can recognize the wants or needs of urban communities to have some regulation to address issues of public safety, without adversely affecting hunters and sportsmen.

Some of the existing laws are precisely that: gun control. Gun laws can work to varying degrees, but none of them will prevent every instance of the misuse of firearms. The question is how much, within the protections under the bill of rights, is acceptable and appropriate.

It would be easy to misunderstand my position, it happens to me often.

You're right on your last quoted statement...your position is very confusing...or vacillating. :thumb:

 

[H2O_Doc]

Actually, you ONLY supported the notion of enforcement of existing laws AFTER i brought out the facts.

From the other thread...











You're right on your last quoted statement...your position is very confusing...or vacillating. :thumb:

That is because my entry into the discussion was prompted by what I thought were spurious arguments and incorrect Interpretations. On that, I have been very consistent.

 

[Stifler]

Hang on a second, keyboard hero - which is it, no difference or big difference?

Because that's the point of my snickers-stealing hypothetical. If you're going to advocate killing somebody because they're trying to take something that isn't theirs, stick to your guns (get it? ha! ). Because what if it's a 10 year old who snags your Diet Coke from your table at McDonalds? What about a 15 year old who grabs your wife's purse? What if they're a 70 year old man with Alzheimers who thinks that cell phone is theirs?

What if it's a 24 year old kid in blue jeans and a hoodie that hasn't shaved in three days and is suffering from dementia and thinks he's in his own house? How are you going to know before you pull your righteous trigger that he's not there to steal your DVD player, hero?

As far as I'm concerned, the only time time it's ok to kill another person is in defence of innocent lives (your own or others), and anybody claiming otherwise is either full of internet bluster or has definite sociopathic tendencies. I'll go one further and say that the talk in this thread of defending "property" with lethal force will probably end up as anti-gun propaganda on another board - the libs have trolls that run around looking for exactly this kind of conversation and will use it against pro-gun advocates on other boards, I've seen it before. I'm about as pro-gun as it gets, and I'm telling you all now this kind of talk isn't helping. It's irresponsible and juvenile and I'm disgusted by it.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a fight, and I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But please, guys, think about what you're saying. Even talk on the internet has consequences.

hold on comprehension hero... I have what apparently a lot of bleeding heart liberal US occupants dont and that is common sense.... if a child pockets a pack of gum of course he shouldnt be shot.... you car jack me, break into my house... take MY personal belongings.... you get shot... in my "CASTLE" or "DOMAIN" you either get that or you don't... I don't play semantics to appease you. Like I said roll the dice if you feel you can trample on my domain

What if it's a 24 year old kid in blue jeans and a hoodie that hasn't shaved in three days and is suffering from dementia and thinks he's in his own house? How are you going to know before you pull your righteous trigger that he's not there to steal your DVD player, hero?

He will most likely get shot...

Capeesh Hero?