Thieves are getting bolder

[Langwilliams]

People with CCW's shooting someone is very rare. Most states that issue them have laws protecting you from prosecution for defending yourself. It isn't a license to kill, you have to feel a reasonable threat of harm. The media hates private gun ownership an if they had stories of civilians shooting innocent people we wouldn't hear the end of it.

The other factor is the jury. They don't like the thought of being threatened in their own homes either so they tend to find with a self defense defendant. You may have legal expenses from a self defense case but it's better than suffering death or serious injury.

The US has this global image of being the wild wild west of shootouts. One political party pushes this image for their agenda of banning private ownership of guns. If you look at the FBI numbers on gun deaths 95% are either suicide or gang related. Many of the gang related shootings harm innocent people caught in the crossfire or hit by a stray bullet. Avoid those areas an you avoid that danger.

The anti "assault weapon" crowd want to ban them but if you look at the FBI stats fewer than 400 people are killed by ALL rifles annually. No one likes seeing people die, but the number killed by AR type weapons is well below people killed by blunt objects.

Also some talk tough about self defense but pulling the trigger means living with the results. Taking a life even in self defense is a serious matter an you have to live with the outcome the rest of your life.

Sponsored

 

[Langwilliams]

Here's a good sign for you country dwellers

 

[Motorpsychology]

That sucks. They took your bag and left the $1000 radar detector. Dumb asses .

Criminals usually aren't very bright. I remember seeing on some cop show the LEO was in a high speed chase, and the perp was signaling his turns!

 

[Devil6]

Neither was your post where you decided to lecture @HTX1811. And I'll leave it at that.

Nice attempt at misdirection in order to gaslight. Good job.

 

[HTX1811]

Probably shouldn't be saying this.... but here goes, MY theory is that the end goal is to completely federalize all law enforcement in the future for that reason. Thank God I'll be long out of the game by that time.

One problem with that the US Constitution does not allow for a national police force. Our forefathers thought enough ahead to prevent a nationalization of state and local police.

In accordance with the federal structure of the United States government, the national (federal) government is not authorized to execute general police powers by the Constitution of the United States of America. The power to have a police force is given to each of the United States' 50 federated states.

Take a look at the 10th amendment. It's our friend.

I’m a Texan too and under no circumstance do you “smoke” any loser just because they are a loser. None.

You should understand that if you shoot at someone they may shoot back and it may happen months later.

While I feel the loss of privacy is unacceptable you do not shoot someone for breaking a window or violating your space. If they take PII, banking information, or family items you have a tough choice to make.

If they threaten you or someone else with loss of life, limb, or eyesight, then take the shot.

if they break into your house, call the police then go into your bedroom, shut the door and wait. It is inevitable that they will try to enter your room. If the police haven’t arrived once they force the door open, feel free to defend yourself using deadly force.

Once the police arrive, never greet them with any kind of weapon.

That is the beauty of the good old USA. We have choices, for now, and you are free to make the choice to run and hide and hope the police get there in time, or stand your ground and protect what you have the right to protect by using deadly force. It's a tough call for some, and not a tough one for others. As I told many citizens in my 25 years, do what you feel is best and within the law. I am not going to preach to anyone on what they feel is best for them unless it is a clear violation of the law. Then I just advise them that maybe that's not a good plan and you may end up charged if you do that.
In Texas, we as citizens have a lot of leeway when it comes to the use of deadly force to protect property not just to prevent serious bodily injury or death. Texas is a stand your ground state. We don't have to run to prevent conflict.
Texas Penal Code Chapter 9. Read up on the law, get some legal advise, and go from there.
https://simerlaw.com/what-is-stand-your-ground-law-in-texas/
Don't take legal advice from key board cowboys though (including me) as gospel. LOL. Do your own research to verify.

 

[JACKSMYDOG]

People with CCW's shooting someone is very rare. Most states that issue them have laws protecting you from prosecution for defending yourself. It isn't a license to kill, you have to feel a reasonable threat of harm. The media hates private gun ownership an if they had stories of civilians shooting innocent people we wouldn't hear the end of it.

The other factor is the jury. They don't like the thought of being threatened in their own homes either so they tend to find with a self defense defendant. You may have legal expenses from a self defense case but it's better than suffering death or serious injury.

The US has this global image of being the wild wild west of shootouts. One political party pushes this image for their agenda of banning private ownership of guns. If you look at the FBI numbers on gun deaths 95% are either suicide or gang related. Many of the gang related shootings harm innocent people caught in the crossfire or hit by a stray bullet. Avoid those areas an you avoid that danger.

The anti "assault weapon" crowd want to ban them but if you look at the FBI stats fewer than 400 people are killed by ALL rifles annually. No one likes seeing people die, but the number killed by AR type weapons is well below people killed by blunt objects.

Also some talk tough about self defense but pulling the trigger means living with the results. Taking a life even in self defense is a serious matter an you have to live with the outcome the rest of your life.

Canada is in the grace period for all "Military Style Weapons". They were in Restricted class until an OIC (Order in Council, the Prime Minister just decided to make it so, like a Dictator) made them illegal over night, with a 2 year grace period which we can still have them, but no longer allowed to use them at all. Can't take them to the range, can't shoot them on our our 100 acre farm, can't take them for service at the smith, can't sell them unless it's international sale and the firearm is leaving the country. The deadline is 01-May-2022, but it's still unclear what will happen;

1-Grandfathered and keep them as prohibited but not allowed to shoot them
2-Hand them in for their "fair market value" assessment, which will probably be a tax deduction
3-Confiscated with no compensation
4-Permenent modification to deactivate

Military Style Weapon is a new classification, that are defined more than anything by the look of the gun. Basically any semi-auto center-fire, with detachable magazine over 5 round falls into this category. 1500 specifically named rifles which can be added to arbitrarily.

There are 75,000 owners of 250,000 rifles that fall under the new prohibition, in a country of 37 million people. There have been 2 or 3 events in the last 50 years involving those rifles.

Restricted Firearms owners in Canada as a group, are more law abiding than Police officers as a group. That is not speculation or hyperbole. Restricted gun owners have to jump through dozens of hoops to get and keep a restricted license, including RCMP interview and in depth history checks. By and large, we are law-abiding.

Criminals on the other hand, well they are criminals. They are responsible for the vast majority of shootings. Most with stolen or smuggled guns. Ironically whenever one is finally convicted of a major crime, the news story list dozens of previous guns crimes and weapons prohibitions. Time after time, they get released, get a new gun and go back to crime, until a news worthy public shooting happens, then full on virtue signalling.

Registered restricted firearms owners are low hanging easy fruit, because we are a small group, with scary looking guns, and the government will get good compliance with some threatening letters. It was very little work to create the OIC, will have great MSM coverage because the same government gives money to the MSM every year.

It will have essentially zero reduction in any crime at all, but millions of Canadians will sleep better knowing the government has a little more boot pressure on their necks.

 

[Langwilliams]

One problem with that the US Constitution does not allow for a national police force. Our forefathers thought enough ahead to prevent a nationalization of state and local police.

You're assuming the people in power care about the limits put on them by the Constitution. The left wants to "progress" away from the Constitution because it is, by design, a limit on government power.

Military Style Weapon

The anti gun people in the US use "weapons of war" to describe AR style weapons. If you fall for this every gun can be classified a "weapon of war" because at some point every type of firearm was used by armed forces at some point.

 

[BladeRanger]

I’m a Texan too and under no circumstance do you “smoke” any loser just because they are a loser. None.

You should understand that if you shoot at someone they may shoot back and it may happen months later.

While I feel the loss of privacy is unacceptable you do not shoot someone for breaking a window or violating your space. If they take PII, banking information, or family items you have a tough choice to make.

If they threaten you or someone else with loss of life, limb, or eyesight, then take the shot.

if they break into your house, call the police then go into your bedroom, shut the door and wait. It is inevitable that they will try to enter your room. If the police haven’t arrived once they force the door open, feel free to defend yourself using deadly force.

Once the police arrive, never greet them with any kind of weapon.

If your life and the lives of your family are in danger, you have the right to defend your property and lives. No human being will just stand there and gave up everything for the criminals.
When I first move in to my house decades ago at 2am someone wants to break in, I woke up and a person halfway in to my living room window, my thought was okay 2am, this asshole is definitely not friendly, he gave me a flash back, thought I was back in my Marine Corps days in desert storm, so I went for my .45 lock and loaded and I told him been waiting for him. He heard my pistol loaded and run back to the window as fast as he can. I could have easily took him out with a kick, punch and knife to his neck. It would have same affect as the lead to his skull.

 

[dapakattack]

Yeah that'll never happen. If some breaks into my house they'll be eating lead. That's like saying if your house is on fire call the fire dept and stay inside.

Besides, they've been warned before entering.

The police will arrive long before any potential thief could enter Dave's house. Reason: "I was marveling that 303 Protectant was used on the sign and forgot why I was here in the first place."

Besides, all doors on Dave's house are dampened....so no forced entry.

 

[HTX1811]

You're assuming the people in power care about the limits put on them by the Constitution. The left wants to "progress" away from the Constitution because it is, by design, a limit on government power.

As long was the supreme court stays in favor of one party, it will stand as a limiting factor. For now it's the last line of defense. I think the mid-term elections will balance the power somewhat. I hope so anyway.

 

[VegasRanger]

One problem with that the US Constitution does not allow for a national police force. Our forefathers thought enough ahead to prevent a nationalization of state and local police.

In accordance with the federal structure of the United States government, the national (federal) government is not authorized to execute general police powers by the Constitution of the United States of America. The power to have a police force is given to each of the United States' 50 federated states.

Take a look at the 10th amendment. It's our friend.

That is the beauty of the good old USA. We have choices, for now, and you are free to make the choice to run and hide and hope the police get there in time, or stand your ground and protect what you have the right to protect by using deadly force. It's a tough call for some, and not a tough one for others. As I told many citizens in my 25 years, do what you feel is best and within the law. I am not going to preach to anyone on what they feel is best for them unless it is a clear violation of the law. Then I just advise them that maybe that's not a good plan and you may end up charged if you do that.
In Texas, we as citizens have a lot of leeway when it comes to the use of deadly force to protect property not just to prevent serious bodily injury or death. Texas is a stand your ground state. We don't have to run to prevent conflict.
Texas Penal Code Chapter 9. Read up on the law, get some legal advise, and go from there.
https://simerlaw.com/what-is-stand-your-ground-law-in-texas/
Don't take legal advice from key board cowboys though (including me) as gospel. LOL. Do your own research to verify.

The constitution? Have you been paying attention lately Sir?? I don’t really think they care much about that anymore.

 

[HTX1811]

The constitution? Have you been paying attention lately Sir?? I don’t really think they care much about that anymore.

See my above post.

 

[Devil6]

If your life and the lives of your family are in danger, you have the right to defend your property and lives. No human being will just stand there and gave up everything for the criminals.
When I first move in to my house decades ago at 2am someone wants to break in, I woke up and a person halfway in to my living room window, my thought was okay 2am, this asshole is definitely not friendly, he gave me a flash back, thought I was back in my Marine Corps days in desert storm, so I went for my .45 lock and loaded and I told him been waiting for him. He heard my pistol loaded and run back to the window as fast as he can. I could have easily took him out with a kick, punch and knife to his neck. It would have same affect as the lead to his skull.

I acknowledge the right to self defense if life, limb, or eyesight is threatened.

What isn’t self defense is protecting your flat screen by killing some loser. In addition, the loser may have a weapon. Is a shoot out worth a TV?

Secure the things that matter to you, the lives of your family members in one place, your bed room, the place that is seen as your last refuge in your castle. The losers will enter your room, in time. When that happens, defend yourself with whatever force you have.

No police will take you into custody and no charges will be filled. But, go looking for them, hunt them down, provoke a confrontation over a TV and kill a loser and your troubles are just starting.

You need to understand that your freedoms and rights have limits.

 

[HTX1811]

I acknowledge the right to self defense if life, limb, or eyesight is threatened.

What isn’t self defense is protecting your flat screen by killing some loser. In addition, the loser may have a weapon. Is a shoot out worth a TV?

Secure the things that matter to you, the lives of your family members in one place, your bed room, the place that is seen as your last refuge in your castle. The losers will enter your room, in time. When that happens, defend yourself with whatever force you have.

No police will take you into custody and no charges will be filled. But, go looking for them, hunt them down, provoke a confrontation over a TV and kill a loser and your troubles are just starting.

You need to understand that your freedoms and rights have limits.

No one has said anything about hunting someone down. The conversation has been about protecting your property with deadly force. Not sure where you are coming up with your story line?????

 

[ranger4x]

I acknowledge the right to self defense if life, limb, or eyesight is threatened.

What isn’t self defense is protecting your flat screen by killing some loser. In addition, the loser may have a weapon. Is a shoot out worth a TV?

Secure the things that matter to you, the lives of your family members in one place, your bed room, the place that is seen as your last refuge in your castle. The losers will enter your room, in time. When that happens, defend yourself with whatever force you have.

No police will take you into custody and no charges will be filled. But, go looking for them, hunt them down, provoke a confrontation over a TV and kill a loser and your troubles are just starting.

You need to understand that your freedoms and rights have limits.

My bedroom is the very last down the hall. They'd have access to both kids rooms before that. No, thanks.

Sponsored