Texans given deadly force gun laws

[rtwo]

why, as a christian, do you feel it necessary to kill and not wound?

Not to answer for the person you're talking to... but probably because dead people don't sue... and don't shoot back.

I understand the rational about making sure the other doesn't shoot back, but I certaintly hope a Christian wouldn't kill another just so they don't have to worry about going to court!

But that's why we pay billions of dollars annually for a millitary!

So, when there is trouble, we politely ask them to wait while we call the proper authorities?

I may or may not shoot to protect myself... but you'd better believe I would kill instantly to protect my wife and children.

No, again I think there needs to be a medium... I have no problem with having weapons for self defense, but we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE... we don't need a militia, we have the strongest military in the world. What we do need is a public that can defend themselves on a personal level however. I support handgun and shotgun owners, but I don't support flamethrower/assault rifle/missle owners exactly

No, I quite agree with you about the lawsuit thing... it's a practicality, but certainly, no reason to kill someone. However, in shooting to kill, you are ensuring your safety. You don't know how a wounded person will react, and you may be doing more to threaten your safety (and your family's) by leaving such a person alive.

As for the other: I don't think anyone's been advocating private ownership of full autos or other military weapons.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

As for the other: I don't think anyone's been advocating private ownership of full autos or other military weapons.

Eliyahuw was saying something to that effect, granted he hasn't responded to an earlier post of mine yet concerning what he meant exactly. But basically he was saying how there should be no arms restrictions, and I have a problem with that.

[Eliyahuw]

My grandpa and my great grandpa lived by those rules. So has my dad and so do I and so do my sons. Two to the chest, to take them out, and one to the head in case their wearing body armor. The point is don't wound them; kill them.

why, as a christian, do you feel it necessary to kill and not wound?

Dead people don't get a second chance to kill you. Secondly, you wound them, then you are going to be going to jail for assault and end up losing everything you own because they can collect damages.

Third why allow the scum to live and get out of the hospital and maybe get their hand slapped by some liberal judge and go out and commit the same crimes to someone else or come back after you in retaliation.

Dead men tell no tales.

Why would i pull a gun out if i didn't intend to use it in the first place. If the situation calls for me pulling a gun, then i am going to use it. There are more people killed with their own guns because they didn't use it the second they pulled it. They stood there running their mouth shouting warnings and what their going to do and end up wounded or dying for thier stupidity.

How are people killed with their own guns because they didn't use it the second they pulled it? Do you mean they were killed because they had a gun, didn't use it, and the other person shot them? That may be, but again that sounds like the victims were never intending to use it. In fact, I know that is one of the arguements for increased gun control.

If you pulled a gun on me and didn't use it and stood there running your mouth, i would take it away from you and shove it where the sun don't shine. CAuse if your running your mouth your not serious about shooting me.

But that still doesn't mean that you are required to shoot at someone when you pull your gun... you could pull your gun, and the other person might go running away out of fear.

Yeah you could, or that person could take your gun and shoot you.

That certaintly isn't a time to shoot them in the back, at least I would think not. In the same way, someone with their wits about them could pull a gun on another, and make the other put their hands up, or do something that would make it impossible for them to pull a gun on you. If they reach for something fast, then you should shoot them, but I just don't think it is the best attitude to shoot first and ask questions later unless it is in an extreme circumstance.

Well if their on or in my property without permission, their intent is to do harm. If they were not intending to do harm they wouldn't be breaking in.

I didn't say letting civilians, i said Citizens. Citizens ahve a constitutionally protected right. Civilians don't necessarily have that right.

Honest question. What's the difference? I honestly have a hard time distinguishing the two words, and I often use them interchangeably.

A citizen is an American. He has sworn loyalty to this country and has received citizenship or is natural born citizen.

Civilians may be or may not be a citizen.

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

But that's why we pay billions of dollars annually for a millitary!

And you would be one of the many americans that have abdicated their responsibility. It is the responsibility of every American to be prepared.

[jgarden]

Record Number Of Americans Jailed - Sun, 3 Dec 2006

WASHINGTON

Edited March 30, 2007 by jgarden

[jgarden]

If guns are a deterrant to crime - tell it to the 1 in 32 Americans who are currently "guests" of the Justice System?

Guns are not the criminals taking up space in the penal system. It's the criminals who use the guns in the act of a crime who are taking up the space.

This returns back to my original question - why are there so many convicted felons in American prisons if the "right to bear arms" is supposed to act a deterent against crime?

Guns are the popular weapon of choice by felons for a reason when it comes to engaging in crimminal act. Presumably, it gives the owner a decided advantage over the victim that no other weapon possesses.

If public access to firearms works as a deterent then America should have a lower crime rate than other countries with strict gun control.

If public access to firearms doesn't work as a deterent then America should have a crime rate equal to or greater than other countries with strict gun control.

Edited March 30, 2007 by jgarden

[jgarden]

This returns back to my original question - why are there so many convicted felons in American prisons if the "right to bear arms" is supposed to act a deterent against crime?

Many of these convicted felons who commit crimes do not have their guns legally, and they obtain a gun on the black market, steal them, obtain them illegally, etc. solely for the purpose of committing a crime. On the other, if I own a gun legally, I will have a sign in my window warning a prospective criminal "BEWARE, ARMED AND DANGEROUS.... BREAK IN AT YOUR OWN RISK!!" They get the message loud and clear.

Whether felons get their guns legally or illegally is not the issue - the issue is why the public's "right to bear arms" doesn't translate into lower instead of higher crime rates?

With 230 million guns in circulation, felons already know that a substantial % of the population are carrying weapons but why doesn't that deter them?

Edited March 30, 2007 by jgarden

[jgarden]

Whether felons get their guns legally or illegally is not the issue - the issue is why the public's "right to bear arms" doesn't translate into lower instead of higher crime rates?

It most certainly is the issue as far as I am concerned, and I have already addressed your queries, that you don't want to accept.

With 230 million guns in circulation, felons already know that a substantial % of the population are carrying weapons.

This is merely conjecture on your part.

You're right because you say you're right - how can one argue with such inciteful logic like that?

In the Catholic Church its referred to as "papal infallibility!"

Edited March 30, 2007 by jgarden

[apothanein kerdos]

Record Number Of Americans Jailed - Sun, 3 Dec 2006

WASHINGTON

[Guest yod]

With 230 million guns in circulation, felons already know that a substantial % of the population are carrying weapons but why doesn't that deter them?

It did in Texas!

Crime has gone down where citizens can legally carry weapons. By contrast, the places with the most violent crime is where the gun control laws are most stringent.

[Tubal-Cain]

It did in Texas!

Crime has gone down where citizens can legally carry weapons. By contrast, the places with the most violent crime is where the gun control laws are most stringent.

Can you provide statistics for these claims? And there is still the issue of why the US has more crime than other industrialized nations, including nations with strict gun control laws.