-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
FL - When not to draw
- Thread starter Boomer654
- Start date
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Again, I personally would NOT have fired in the beer incident or the jewelry incident unless, perhaps,I saw a weapon present in the jewelry robbery.
That said, I was only speaking of what I know of Texas law and what citizens are allowed to do. I can't speak for Florida law and I won't even pretend to be a lawyer.
Each situation is different and of course, the laws vary. I don't think anyone was condoning shooting people over beer, just that being that it was legal to do so, the criminals should know better and are risking it if they commit crimes.
I think you think your opponents on the beer thread are condoning shooting over minuscule property like beer as a principle. If others were, I didn't get that impression, and I was certainlynot suggesting that. I am more focused on the law, why it exists, business owners, and that criminals get-what-they-get when they take those kinds of chances in a state with lawslike that.
Again, I personally would NOT have fired in the beer incident or the jewelry incident unless, perhaps,I saw a weapon present in the jewelry robbery.
That said, I was only speaking of what I know of Texas law and what citizens are allowed to do. I can't speak for Florida law and I won't even pretend to be a lawyer.
Each situation is different and of course, the laws vary. I don't think anyone was condoning shooting people over beer, just that being that it was legal to do so, the criminals should know better and are risking it if they commit crimes.
I think you think your opponents on the beer thread are condoning shooting over minuscule property like beer as a principle. If others were, I didn't get that impression, and I was certainlynot suggesting that. I am more focused on the law, why it exists, business owners, and that criminals get-what-they-get when they take those kinds of chances in a state with lawslike that.
imported post
Again, I have learned that shooting people over beer is what is best. (<-- Sarcasm at it's maximum level.) <-- Edited in at about 1:00am so as to not hijack thread further.
I wont steal this thread anymore, I just wanted to point out how interesting it is that the individual would congratulate this person, and then put word after word in my mouth because I said something that was almost exactly the same as what they said in this thread. You even called me out on that, when I said that we don't have the right to own guns for the purpose of stopping crimes. I don't know how it came across but the point was exactly the same as the one I quoted in this thread. I was "called out" by that very individual for quite a few things that I never even said. I was not trying to hijack this thread, but simply note the contradiction.
Again, I have learned that shooting people over beer is what is best. (<-- Sarcasm at it's maximum level.) <-- Edited in at about 1:00am so as to not hijack thread further.
I wont steal this thread anymore, I just wanted to point out how interesting it is that the individual would congratulate this person, and then put word after word in my mouth because I said something that was almost exactly the same as what they said in this thread. You even called me out on that, when I said that we don't have the right to own guns for the purpose of stopping crimes. I don't know how it came across but the point was exactly the same as the one I quoted in this thread. I was "called out" by that very individual for quite a few things that I never even said. I was not trying to hijack this thread, but simply note the contradiction.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
I see what you were trying to do now, I didn't see a name attached to your quote, my apologies...
But come on, saying that you have learned that shooting people over beer is what is best is absurdas that is not what I was suggesting and I think you know that and are trying to twist the discussion into something else.
For the record, theproduct doesn't matter to me if it's justifiable per Texas law. If you don't like that (which apparently you don't), then argue about the law as it exists, not someone following it or even justspeaking of it like I am. That's really what the whole discussion comes down to anyway. It has nothing to do with beer.
Weak 9mm wrote:
I see what you were trying to do now, I didn't see a name attached to your quote, my apologies...
But come on, saying that you have learned that shooting people over beer is what is best is absurdas that is not what I was suggesting and I think you know that and are trying to twist the discussion into something else.
For the record, theproduct doesn't matter to me if it's justifiable per Texas law. If you don't like that (which apparently you don't), then argue about the law as it exists, not someone following it or even justspeaking of it like I am. That's really what the whole discussion comes down to anyway. It has nothing to do with beer.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
Good Judgement and Focus on the situation at hand.
That kind of mindsetshould be themodel for allGun Carriersto have.
Cool, Calm and Collected.
Good Judgement and Focus on the situation at hand.
That kind of mindsetshould be themodel for allGun Carriersto have.
Cool, Calm and Collected.
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
Weak 9mm wrote:
It's completely different when they have a gun out and trained on those they're gonna rob. How the heck do you know if they're gonna leave peacefully or not after they get what they want? If someone is robbing a store for a gumball at gun point I say shootem.Quite a few folks on here would curse you for not having tried to kill them. What were you thinking? You had a gun y0. You should have killed them!
That it!!
I hereby sentence you to 80 hours of remedial Mall Ninja training! Don't you know that there are mall ninjas all over this nation dying to be in that situation and using their mad tyt3 tacticool skillz to single handedly take out the BGs!!
Seriously, I would probably have done the same thing. We are not adjunct LEO, we are private citizens who carry for defense against serious bodily injury and death, not to provide public service security. Good evaluation of your limitations in all arenas.
It's pretty interesting how much your attitude changes when beer is the thing being stolen.
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
However, I think it would have been wrong to shoot, and probably foolish as well. Even if the shoot were legal, radont might well have ended up trying to justify his actions to a jury in a civil trial, and they probably wouldn't see it as a reasonable decision.
Not to mention the issue of sleeping at night.
I decided when I started carrying that my gun's only purpose (other than maybe a little activism
) was to protect people. I know the arguments about how property is just a piece of someone's labor, and therefore life, condensed into a physical object, but I don't buy them. I'm not shooting another human being for any reason other than to defend myself or someone else from serious injury or death.
In radont's situation, I hope I would have stayed cool enough to do exactly the same. Except that I almost always have a camera on me, so I'd probably have been snapping pictures with my left hand. I'm a lousy witness, but I take a mean photo.
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
I was going to make the same point.
However, I think it would have been wrong to shoot, and probably foolish as well. Even if the shoot were legal, radont might well have ended up trying to justify his actions to a jury in a civil trial, and they probably wouldn't see it as a reasonable decision.
Not to mention the issue of sleeping at night.
I decided when I started carrying that my gun's only purpose (other than maybe a little activism
) was to protect people. I know the arguments about how property is just a piece of someone's labor, and therefore life, condensed into a physical object, but I don't buy them. I'm not shooting another human being for any reason other than to defend myself or someone else from serious injury or death.In radont's situation, I hope I would have stayed cool enough to do exactly the same. Except that I almost always have a camera on me, so I'd probably have been snapping pictures with my left hand. I'm a lousy witness, but I take a mean photo.