I wanted to find a link to the story about Texas' preposed modification to their gun laws following the Virginia Tech. massacre, making it legal to carry concealed weopons in courtrooms, schools, and hospitals, but I failed. However that would make a suitable topic of discussion for a real thread.
I just don't understand how Texas intends to solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it in the first place.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I just don't understand how Texas intends to solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it in the first place.
I imagine that their opinion is that, for example, if a teacher or student had a gun at VT, they could have stopped the shooter before it had gotten quite so bad.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as someone who has a concealed weapons license, I can totally see the thought process in Texas. But I'm not sure if I agree...
In my mind more people should carry a gun. My logic behind this is that:
1. I value self reliance. I think that people should be able to get themselves out of anything.
2. People should be afraid of wronging another person. If it is the norm to carry, then the likely hood of of some punk kid deciding to take a joy ride in a brand new car is rather low. I mean who in their right mind would steal a car for a joy ride when the owner of the vehicle could come around the corner, loose his cool and then plead self defense?
3. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I am always polite towards someone who has the ability to end my life. If everybody had that ability, just think about how much more polite the world would be...
Now, with my reasons for people carrying being stated. I'm not sure if it is appropriate for people to carry in certain places. Places like churches, schools, and courtrooms are supposed to be safe, civilized places. They are places where one should expect to be safe, and not everyone is as comfortable with guns as I am. Thus, I shouldn't take my gun to these places and make people uncomfortable.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Stryker: Now, with my reasons for people carrying being stated. I'm not sure if it is appropriate for people to carry in certain places. Places like churches, schools, and courtrooms are supposed to be safe, civilized places. They are places where one should expect to be safe, and not everyone is as comfortable with guns as I am. Thus, I shouldn't take my gun to these places and make people uncomfortable.
Following that logic, walking down the street is supposed to be safe. The parking lot is supposed to be safe. The park is supposed to be safe. Maybe people shouldn't take their guns to these places either. I'm not taking either side, just pointing out where I can see the argument going.
Here's another one: Texas Shoot-First Law . I didn't know about this, but it seems many states already have similar laws. Crazy that Texas should be years behind in allowing citizens to shoot each other because they feel threatened. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Stryker: Now, with my reasons for people carrying being stated. I'm not sure if it is appropriate for people to carry in certain places. Places like churches, schools, and courtrooms are supposed to be safe, civilized places. They are places where one should expect to be safe, and not everyone is as comfortable with guns as I am. Thus, I shouldn't take my gun to these places and make people uncomfortable.
Following that logic, walking down the street is supposed to be safe. The parking lot is supposed to be safe. The park is supposed to be safe. Maybe people shouldn't take their guns to these places either. I'm not taking either side, just pointing out where I can see the argument going.
But the street and parking lots are uncontrolled environments. An uncontrolled environment is inherently dangerous. Those are places where an individual may or may not feel comfortable.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with everyone having a gun is that a lot of people are stupid and irresponsible. I think the idea of everyone out there having the ability to kill me is a terrifying thought. However, I am fine with concealed weapons after a thorough background check, psych evaluation and mandatory gun safety class. My brother, for example, has done all those things so I would prefer him being armed then not (the psych check was for work though, not part of the concealed weapon requirement).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, I am fine with concealed weapons after a thorough background check, psych evaluation and mandatory gun safety class. My brother, for example, has done all those things so I would prefer him being armed then not (the psych check was for work though, not part of the concealed weapon requirement)."
Interesting. I'm still not sure that a thorough psych evaluation would keep guns out of the hands of the Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold variety of killers.
Oh, and it was an excellent dobie!
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If more people have the ability to kill, then more people will be killed. If that's worth the extra dollop of politeness that dueling societies get, then by all means go for it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yesterday on the freeway, a guy cut me off so that I had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him. I honked, and he started flipping out (as well as flipping off). He then hit the brakes right in front of me, so I would have to slam on mine again.
Obviously he was already exhibiting irrational and dangerous behavior. I'd hate to think what he might have done if he'd had a gun. I don't think he even deserves to continue driving if he values other people's safety so little.
I would be fine with more people carrying guns if people, on the whole, were rational, considerate, thoughtful, honest, and just. Unfortunately, there are too many crazy aholes out there who already have way more privileges than they deserve.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's is called the "castle doctrine" and not "shoot first."
The law is really all about one's right to protect their home and NOT BEING SUED IN CIVIL COURT BY THE MORON THAT WAS BREAKING AND ENTERING, ROBBING, RAPING ETC, if he is injured in the process, or by his family if he is killed in the process, even if the shooting was found justified in criminal court.
The bill goes into effect Sept. 1st of this year. I also have a conceled handgun licence & I fully support this law. If I ever have to protect myself or my family or my home and shoot a perpetrator, I WILL go to trial, but I will not go to civil court and be destroyed financially.
quote:Castle Doctrine Coming to Texas
"If somebody's breaking into your house, I think it's fair for you to assume that person is there to do you harm," said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, D-District 25.
Last week, Wentworth introduced the "Castle Doctrine," which broadens the legal definition of self-defense.
"Today, you don't have a right to defend yourself, to stand and defense yourself and your family," Wentworth said. "You have an obligation to retreat and not use excessive force."
That's the way the law works now. If the Castle Doctrine passes, you'll be allowed to defend yourself through whatever means necessary, including deadly force if need-be. If you believe someone is threatening you at your home, in your vehicle, even at your place of business.
"This is clearly the will of the people," Wentworth said. "Nobody has phoned me, nobody has written me, faxed me, emailed me, or said to me, 'This is not a good idea.'"
In Oklahoma, law enforcement says it's [a similar law] working. Only they don't call it the "Castle Doctrine." There, it's named the "Make My Day" law. And since it was passed in the 1990s, burglaries have been cut in half.
posted
Thanks Krankykat. The websites where I saw the story called it "shoot first" or "stand your ground" law.
I don't know the extent of the law or how judges will interpret it. In some cases, it makes good sense, but in some cases it's crazy.
If someone breaks into my home and comes at me, I believe I should have the right to defend myself, and indeed, it's blatantly idiotic that the criminal should then be able to sue me for injuring him while he attacked me in my home.
On the other hand, if two people are yelling at each other from their car windows, one should not get to shoot the other one because he "felt threatened" in his vehicle.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Stryker: I'm not sure if it is appropriate for people to carry in certain places. Places like churches, schools, and courtrooms.....I shouldn't take my gun to these places and make people uncomfortable.
I strongly, strongly disagree. The places people feel safe and comfortable are the places we need to protect MOST.
A friend of a friend used to be a cop, and was at Wedgewood Church in Fort Worth the night that guy showed up and started shooting. He wasn't carrying his piece because he was off-duty and in plainclothes and to paraphrase him, "my buddies sometimes joked that I was paranoid when I carried my gun off-duty." He had to watch his son die in front of him because he didn't want to make people uncomfortable or be the butt of any more jokes. Churches need to be protected; especially since various Muslim terror groups have expressed interest in hitting churches and synagogues here in the states.
Same thing with schools. Think how much blooshed at Beslan could have been avoided.
The places where our children and families congregate are the ones which will be targeted FIRST. I'm carrying my piece everywhere I go, and so is my wife. Call me an inbred redneck gun nut if you want to, but I may save your life one day.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: On the other hand, if two people are yelling at each other from their car windows, one should not get to shoot the other one because he "felt threatened" in his vehicle.
How the hell do you feel threatened while you're in your car? Just drive away, or if you can't for some reason, run the guy over.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. In states without this law, you're expected to attempt to leave danger before you use deadly force. In states with the Castle Doctrine law, you're allowed to use deadly force any time you feel threatened, without making any attempt to flee the situation.
As I said, I think it makes sense in some situations, but I think it also opens the door for some truly frightening possibilities. Imagine a case of road rage on the highway, and suddenly a dozen people in their cars, all carrying, each feel threatened because there's shooting going on.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist, or a gun-control nut, but I think the majority of people should not be allowed to carry a gun.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm not trying to be an alarmist, or a gun-control nut, but I think the majority of people should not be allowed to carry a gun.
I think the majority of people should not be allowed to vote. To each his own, I guess.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
