BF2S Forums How Many of You Agree With This Statement?

Spark wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Ooh, big man on campus, running around making dipshit remarks.  I've actually had to use weapons to defend myself on two seperate occasions.  Once I had to kill someone.

Did you kill the guy on the bicycle wearing the army helmet? Thats my buddy you sick bastard.

Hmmm... Bubbalo, you wouldn't be related to the Williams or Moran families, would you?

I may be peripherally associated with those legitimate businessmen, why?

What makes you think that?

usmarine2007 wrote:

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature."

This is a weird statement. The two concepts, (1) the idea of defining the right and (2) the fact that the right is intuitive, are related, but the "not only ... but" construction makes no sense.

The policy would be more reasonable in Texas, where more people have significant experience using guns, than it would be in states where most people don't have much experience.

Yeah the problem with that statement is how one defines themselves as being in a situation of "imminent act of harm", unless your psychic how can you prove that you were going to be attacked? 

P.S Iraq would NOT be a good example...

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Yeah the problem with that statement is how one defines themselves as being in a situation of "imminent act of harm", unless your psychic how can you prove that you were going to be attacked? 

P.S Iraq would NOT be a good example...

Why would it not be a good example? Saddam initiated the use of force against his own people & his neighbors, any free nation then had the choice should I invade so that they might have freedom one day as well.

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_ … lyforce_dc

I agree with it, but retreat is a recognised form of defense, and is touted as the first resort by every self defense instructor I've spoken to.  Where retreat isn't feasible (that is, it isn't possible or it makes one significantly more vulnerable) then use of force is perfectly appropriate.

The problem is that some people expect you to retreat from your own home in order to avoid violence.  Some of us (including folks like me here in Texas) do not think you should be forced out of your own home.

You should have the right to defend yourself against someone BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME.  If lethal force is needed because the person refuses to listen to warnings to leave, you should not have to worry about repurcussions from the violators family because you defended yours.  In other words, if you are in my house, and I think you intend to harm me or my family.  I should be able to do whatever it takes to make sure myself and/or my family are not harmed within my home. 

Outside the home is a different story.  Most businesses here have the warning that carrying a weapon on their premises are illegal, so at your business might cause a little legal trouble.  But look at it this way, just this week a convenience store clerk shot someone trying to rob him at gun point.  Should the clerk be punished for defending his life?

There will be downsides... it is possible someone could shoot a law enforcement official claiming they felt threatened in their home, when the LEO was carrying out a warrant or other legal search.

For the longest time I was in denial that I am a Texan (not originally from here, and it drives my ife crazy that I resist), but laws like this and Jessica's law make me feel like I might be in the right place after all.

Linky for the actual bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ … 00378I.htm

Edit to add link...

Last edited by silo1180 (2007-03-28 09:44:04)

Konfusion0 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

I'm against the right to bear arms, unless you're in the army, police, or have been in either.

Out of curiousity, why?

Because I feel safer knowing that not just any idiot can obtain a gun. Sure, there may be a black market in some places, but it makes it harder to get...

-konfusion

I don't know about other countries, but here in the states, any idiot cannot get a gun. You have to pass a background check, at minimum.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Yeah the problem with that statement is how one defines themselves as being in a situation of "imminent act of harm", unless your psychic how can you prove that you were going to be attacked?

The legal standard is if a reasonable man in the same position would come to the same conclusion, you are covered. And since the Texas definition of a reasonable man is very, very different than the California man, most folks are covered.

MrE`158 wrote:

But, I'd add in some provisos.  Defend yourself with appropriate force.  I realise that with the use of firearms, any shot can be lethal, but frankly you should only fire at someone if it's the only option left.  I'd only advocate shooting an intruder (for example) if they're aware that you're pointing a gun at them and they're still not leaving.  If someone punches you, pulling out a handgun and putting a bullet in their chest is not an appropriate response.

I don't think anyone should have to retreat in their own home.  If you're in your home and someone breaks in, and refuses to leave when confronted, blow him the fuck away.  But, reading the link in the original post, I'm not thrilled about extending that to, for example, the workplace.  Sure, if you can't retreat, take what action you need to.  Maybe it's just the society I've grown up in, but I don't think that lethal force should every be at the top of a list of actions.  You should always be required to at least attempt something else first.

First of all, there is already legislation in place (this bill is just adding to it) that defines the justification for use of deadly force. The problem with your example is that it's not good. If some crazy assed MMA fighter comes up to me after a match, all cranked up or methed out, and throws a punch at me, I believe I'm well within my right to shoot him. If a big dude throws a punch at one of my female friends, she should be well within her right to shoot him.

If someone is in my home, at night, and going bump in the night, I'm not going to identify myself and ask him to leave. I'm going to shoot first and ask questions later.

Now, as to extending the legislation to cars and workplaces.... The protection was already in place for the business owner and his designated employees. For example, if you owned a liquor store, you could keep a pump action shotty under the counter, and anyone could use it to shoot a thief. This is simply extending that protection to those who wish to carry a concealed weapon in their place of work.

It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

imortal wrote:

san4 wrote:

This is a weird statement. The two concepts, (1) the idea of defining the right and (2) the fact that the right is intuitive, are related, but the "not only ... but" construction makes no sense.

The policy would be more reasonable in Texas, where more people have significant experience using guns, than it would be in states where most people don't have much experience.

...and why would we have more people with significant experience using guns?  The 2nd ammendment applies to every state in the nation, does it not?  Ok, we have more people willing to excersise that right. "If you fail to defend your rights, do not be suprised when the government follows your example."

It's not any different for Texans than people from areas where you grow up with firearms. I grew up in St. Louis and would argue that I have fired, in my 25 years, more rounds of ammo than 95% of the population of Texas will in their entire lives. Texas just has the aura of a firearm loving state. Its no different than Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or any other state with lots of rural area.

blisteringsilence wrote:

First of all, there is already legislation in place (this bill is just adding to it) that defines the justification for use of deadly force. The problem with your example is that it's not good. If some crazy assed MMA fighter comes up to me after a match, all cranked up or methed out, and throws a punch at me, I believe I'm well within my right to shoot him. If a big dude throws a punch at one of my female friends, she should be well within her right to shoot him.

So, using the same arguements, if your wife tries to slap you then you should be within your rights to shoot her dead?

Surely if your examples were legal so would that. Not good.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Out of curiousity, why?

Because I feel safer knowing that not just any idiot can obtain a gun. Sure, there may be a black market in some places, but it makes it harder to get...

-konfusion

I don't know about other countries, but here in the states, any idiot cannot get a gun. You have to pass a background check, at minimum.

I saw the application form - didn't seem too hard to me to get a gun.

-konfusion

Konfusion0 wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

Because I feel safer knowing that not just any idiot can obtain a gun. Sure, there may be a black market in some places, but it makes it harder to get...

-konfusion

I don't know about other countries, but here in the states, any idiot cannot get a gun. You have to pass a background check, at minimum.

I saw the application form - didn't seem too hard to me to get a gun.

-konfusion

In a free country as long as a citizen is not a criminal, any citizen should be able to acquire a gun.  The government should have no right to tell a law-abiding citizen whether or not he can purchase a weapon for hunting, the shooting sports, or home protection.  Period.

Bubbalo wrote:

Why should I?  I feel it enough to say that the situation was not one I could safely remove myself from.

because you are telling a story.
at least attempt to back it up.....unless you are worried about someone calling you out on your bullshit.