Intruder Shot in San Marcos

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

A man San Marcos police said was shot after breaking into a home on Oscar Smith Drive armed with a BB gun, is in stable condition today at University Medical Center Brackenridge, police Commander Penny Dunn said.

Police released no names involved in the shooting as they continued their investigation, Dunn said. No charges have been filed in the case, she said.

Officers were first called at 9:50 p.m. Wednesday from someone reporting a break-in in progress at the back door of a home in the 700 block of Oscar Smith Drive, Dunn said.

One of three people in the home at the time fired several shots at a man Dunn said was armed with a BB handgun. The intruder then fled on foot wounded, she said.


http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/10/22/intruder_shot_in_san_marcos.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. Please post this in the Guns folder where it belongs.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Honest mistake.

[Jim Sagle]

3. No prob.

:thumbsup:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. I alerted and asked them to be moved.

[uppityperson]

5. snark. edited to delete

[msongs]

6. no righteous killing to get off on in this one? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. No just a righteous shooting.

[rd_kent]

26. Why is it in EVERY thread, ALL you post is inflammatory bullshit?

Perhaps if you had a point, other than the one on the top of your head.......

[safeinOhio]

8. Here is some help so you don't

have to shoot the guy and make a mess of the carpet.

http://www.robaughproducts.com/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. That's just idiotic.

[safeinOhio]

10. Did you check the home security section?

Some great cheap stuff. You know how much it cost to clean carpets?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. I have 7 very good priceless alarm systems, besides I have hardwood floors.

[safeinOhio]

14. I have some of those priceless systems you are talking about too

, but for a few bucks you can get a few signs that say Protected by XXXX security. A few more bucks and you can secure doors and windows. A few more and you can get cheap alarm sirens, motion lights are dirt cheap now and yappy dogs scare off more criminals than than the thought that the home owner might be armed. If one does not take advantage of those options too, they most likely are just hoping to use their 2nd Amendment tools. I am all for the 2nd Amendment. I am also for making use of deadly force my last option when others are available to me.
I think my way is the middle road that can disarm critics of the 2nd Amendment. Your statement enables them and does more to put gun ownership and freedom at risk. The old "shoot first" mentality is risky.

[Euromutt]

17. To Hell with yappy dogs

If the performance of the pooches in my neighborhood is anything to go by, they're about as effective as your average car alarm; that is, they go off at the slightest provocation so damn often that by the time they're trying to alert you to an actual intruder, you've learned to tune them out.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. There is a huge tactical advantage in his system.

It gives you time to fully wake up to properly greet the goblin. However, I will do without the dogs.

[rd_kent]

27. Ahh, the old "if you dont do this, then you MUST want to shoot someone".

I beleive just the opposite. I SHOULD be able to go to bed at night without locking my doors. I SHOULD be able to leave my house secure that some jackass is not going to come rob me. But because that is not reality, I HAVE to get locks, alarms, dogs, etc. and by your logic, if all I get is a tool to protect me and mine, then I MUST just want to shoot someone. Looking over what I just listed, all of those items are TOOLS for protection and security. WHo are YOU to tell ME what tools I MUST use?

[safeinOhio]

30. Where did I say you must?

I'm only pointing out an easier way than just having your gun by your bed and thinking you are safe. Also, talk to about anyone that has used lethal force and you'll find most regret having to use it after the hassle from the cops and law suits from the family of the crook. Hope you are a light sleeper, always wake up in an instant to be able to decide to shoot or not, have lots of money for lawyers, which you will have to spend lots of money for. Lot easier to spend a few bucks and watch the crooks go to the next house. The time it takes the crook to kick in my door with a dead bolt, three inch screws in the striker and hinges gives me time to react and most likely makes the bad guy go away. I don't tell anyone what tools they must have. If you are angry because I suggest a way to protect yourself for much less than the cost of a gun, so be it. I'm happy to do things my way. At least I give it some thought.

[rd_kent]

31. From an actual security standpoint, you are right.

It IS prudent to take those steps. Having nothing but a deadbolt on the door and a gun in the nightstand is the bare minimum and provides very little actual security. On that we agree.
I took away form your post though, that if all I have is that deadbolt ans the gun, then I must be waiting on someone to break in just so I can shoot them. If I mistook your intent, I retract my statement.

[safeinOhio]

32. Thanks,

It is hard for people to find a middle ground on our 2nd rights. I am totally in agreement with those rights. I also am defender of reduced violence. Most of my post are taken in the wrong way by defenders of the 2nd. My goal is to reduce gun violence to keep the so called "grabbers" from having excuses to want to disarm law abiding people from owning guns. Many of the defenders here think the best way is to post stories about crooks getting shot. I think a better way is to do every thing possible to reduce gun violence with simple, cost effective measures to deter crime and keep people safe. I'm finding that harder than I thought it would be without ruffling feathers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. More 'concern' from the person that wanted to ban "sniper rifles"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=235819#235832

safeinOhio (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-04-09 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Simple
If I can't defend myself from it with a defensive weapon like a pistol or shotgun, I'm against it. If a crazy guy wants to do me harm, I at least want him to be in range of my side arm that my ccw allows me to carry. Ok, I draw the line, If not, using the where do you draw the line argument, flame thrower to tanks are defensible. People can own fully automatics, they just have to jump thru hoops and I have no problem with that. If you can prove that you are able to own a 50 cal or even a 499 cal, just like a fully auto, I can approve that. Just like you have to prove your a good guy to carry, I can see taking it to a higher level for most offensive weapons. I do not want the guy down the street that has a problem with me and is nuttier than a fruit cake to go into a gun show and buy that kind of weapon with out a super duper background check and then pick me off from a 1,000 yards. I'd be glad to a rational debate about the details. Isn't compromise what self-governing is all about.


safeinOhio (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-04-09 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'm tired too
any traditional long gun that has a history of use for hunting is fine. Your right that not many rifles are used for murder. Then there are those mass murders like Columbine where they were used. Not so much hunting rifles there.

Tell us some more about 'so called 'grabbers"'....

[safeinOhio]

39. Sure, .

grabbers want to take away all guns. Gun nuts think Nuclear bombs are covered in the 2nd Amendment. I'm for reasonable restriction and reasonable rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Can you point to a single person who has advocated personal ownership of nukes?

[safeinOhio]

41. No and where do you draw the line?

Do you think every one should be able to own full autos? Do you agree with NRA on back ground history? Do you think it is reasonable to pass a test to have a CCW? Do you think States should be able to regulate gun ownership? I'm not sure on many things, but there has to be limits and protections. No one is going to agree on every thing. I happen to be against extremism on either side. When you get to the extreme on any issue, you tend to drive others to the other extreme.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. NFA, CCW permits okay by me. I don't think States should be able to violate the Constitution.

[safeinOhio]

43. I 'm with you on that too

I even favor Vermonts no need for CCWs as right for that state to do.
The Constitutions does not cover many things that it could not foresee, like the internet and modern weapons. That is why it set up the Supreme Court to interpret it. If it was not a fluid document, it would have never lasted as long. So far it has not interpreted the 2nd as a fundamental right, so states can regulate it as they see it relates to their state, with in reason. I don't think the same laws for New York City would make sense for North Dakota or the other way around. When one state strays too far either way, the court takes action. I'm good with that too. I moved to Ohio because I didn't care for what was going on in the other state. As long as I have that right I'm not as concerned about one states law that I disagree with.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. You want only 'traditional long guns' used for "hunting"....

...controls on 'sniper rifles', and then go on to claim rifles were used at Columbine.

IOW, you want an "assault rifle ban" without actually coming out and saying it.

Then you say you are against extremism.

Tell you what- Why don't you go research the law, research facts about firearms, and get back to us...

[safeinOhio]

45. Pretty simple even for you

If I didn't come out and say it, I didn't say it. I don't do my research by reading NRA stuff. So, you don't want any controls on assault rifles? I'd say fully auto military rifles being legal is extreme. Now where DO you draw the line?

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. They are legal some places. Legal, but expensive as hell

As long as you've got the dosh to buy one (multi-thousands of $), live in a locale where they are legal, pass the
near-proctological background check, get approved by the local cop shop, and pay the $200 Federal transfer tax,
you can own them.

Look, I'm gonna say this once:

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ASSAULT RIFLES. THOSE ARE MACHINE GUNS.

We are talking about semi-automatic rifles, which only go *bang* once when you pull the trigger.

You can buy these in most states (like Ohio), and even in "gun-unfriendly" Massachusetts I could buy what
would be a pretty good sniper rifle if I had the desire, cash and could be arsed to go renew my Firearms ID Card.

Lots and lots of Americans own these, especially in the AR, SKS, and KalashniKlone flavors. Most
of these owner don't hunt, and the ones that do find them useful as hunting rifles (where permitted by law)

You seem not to like these. They are rarely used in crime, and the full throw-down, OG, ginuwine full-automatic
machine gun even less.

Please read up on the difference. It *is* an important point.

[safeinOhio]

48. Well aware of the difference

It looks like you approve of the restrictions on fully auto arms. That is my point. There is nothing wrong with thoughtful, make sense restrictions, just that different people draw the line at different places. I have no problem with those that qualify for owning autos. I am against just anyone being able to buy one. I am for registration of hand guns. I have many that were registered in the last state I lived in. I have no problem with that. If that was the case in all states, many hand guns would be more difficult for criminals to obtain. Sure they can get stolen ones, but those would be traced as stolen, adding to prison time for bad guys. Sensible laws take away the logic people use to ban all guns. Lower gun violence does that too. When a good guy shoots a bad guy, a lot of you jump up and down and think that adds to case for keeping guns legal across the board. Those that are just against violence just see it as more gun violence and it doesn't change their minds. If all gun deaths and injuries were declining with out new laws, those gun critics would tend to be disarmed in their call for outlawing legal ownership. That is my point. That is why I'll argue for laws that make sense and hope people think more about discouraging criminal attacks in their homes as first defense and using firearms as a second or last resort. We both want gun ownership for legal owners. How we convince those opposed to it differs. The NRA seems to think that the more bad guys we shoot, the better off gun ownership stands. I think the fewer people shot, bad or good, the better off all gun owners will be. If that means laws for trigger locks in homes with children, great I can live with that. If it means discouraging criminal activity with security measures, I'll argue for that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. "The NRA seems to think..." Well, they don't think that, acutually

You need to go to their website and read what they actually say, support, and believe.

And please note the gun control measures they have supported, NICS most prominently.

There are a lot of DUers who believe (or say) "The NRA wants no gun control at all", "The NRA wants everyone to have a
gun", et cetera, etcetera.

No different than the teabaggers and their paranoia about "Obama's plan to impose <whatever hobgoblin is on their
tiny little minds at the moment>".


IOW, they claim *lots* of untrue things about the NRA that could be disproved by a five minute Google search.


Frankly, for whatever reason, you are chiming right along with them...

[safeinOhio]

53. First google find

BOSTON -- Stop Handgun Violence, a non-profit organization dedicated to the prevention of gun violence, today released on-the-record quotes from a National Rifle Association (NRA) spokesperson confirming that the NRA does not support uniform background checks for all gun purchases or the use of the government's anti-terror watch list in precluding gun sales.
The statements were made by NRA spokesperson Ashley Varner during a debate ...

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-166748406.html

I remember they were against using some criminal records to deny gun purchases

[safeinOhio]

54. and then this

In a recent radio debate with me, an NRA official confirmed that the organization is opposed to uniform criminal background checks for fear they will "shut down gun shows." The NRA says that not even people on the suspected terrorist watch list should be barred from purchasing guns because - are you ready for this? - "we do not know how people are put on the list" and "many times people are victims of mistaken identity."

Eighty-nine percent of Americans said they wanted mandatory background checks for anyone buying a gun, according to a 2007 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and The Tarrance Group survey. But the NRA has continually blocked such common-sense legislation as mandatory background checks and five-day waiting periods to buy a handgun. NRA policies handcuff national law enforcement's ability to effectively regulate private gun sales, gun shows, and even the sharing of crime-gun trace data within the law enforcement community.


http://www.truthout.org/article/john-e-rosenthal-had-enough-gun-violence

[X_Digger]

57. Weak google-fu, grasshoppa

NRA opposed the 5 day waiting period- because they support instant checks via NICS.

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill (H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act") would create incentives for states to upgrade their records on criminals and others currently prohibited from buying guns.

While gun owners are often rightly skeptical about what they read in the press, far too many have fallen for the media line that this is a "gun control" bill that came about as a result of the horrific murders at Virginia Tech. From NRA’s perspective, the history of the bill goes back farther--to the earliest days of the instant check system, after it replaced the five-day waiting period created by the original Brady Act. (NRA, of course, opposed the original Brady Bill and its waiting period, supported amendments to force a transition to the instant check system and opposed later bills to make the waiting period permanent.)

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=018

[safeinOhio]

58. OK, I did as you said

"IOW, they claim *lots* of untrue things about the NRA that could be disproved by a five minute Google search."

So,I followed your instructions and entered "NRA criminal background" into google. Spent more like 10 minutes and all I came up with were like the above. Now you tell me I didn't use the right google.
.:crazy:

Ok, I give up there is no middle ground, no compromise, only NRA points. Now tell us all about how the NRA is reasonable about their views and statements about Obama and what he "really wants to do" along with most all Democrats and those damn liberals. Google "NRA Obama" for just 5 minutes or even 10 or even an hour. Then come back to DU with how misunderstood the NRA is. :boring:
Me thinks it lead to cognitive dissonance.

[PavePusher]

59. Maybe you could also quote direct statements from the NRA...

rather than third-party statements about what they claim the NRA said.

Direct source, in other words.

[X_Digger]

61. What friendly_iconoclast said was..

"You need to go to their website and read what they actually say, support, and believe."

Next time try googling: "site:nraila.org NICS support"

Sourcing the brady bunch, or their precursor (stop handgun violence, inc) is like quoting Faux news or the weekly standard when it comes to gun control.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. No, you didn't. And your faux-naive sctick is wearing a little thin..

What I said was:

You need to go to their website and read what they actually say, support, and believe.

(emphasis added)

Then you say:

So, I followed your instructions and entered "NRA criminal background" into google.

Then you take a hit at the NRA. Then you quote some third parties bashing the NRA, with nary an full quote from
the NRA, I might add.

That, combined with your expressed earlier desire to control sniper rifles make me wonder what you're up to.

[Euromutt]

62. Oh, damn the NRA for supporting due process

I find it remarkable how the very same "terrorist watch list" that was such an abomination while Bush was in office (and as the bumper sticker says, if you weren't outraged, you weren't paying attention) has become an adequate substitute for infringing on citizens' liberties without regard for due process. What little respect I had for "truthout" (I'm inherently distrustful of any entity that claims to represent the "truth") has utterly evaporated. Sure they just reprinted the article from the Christian Science Monitor, but "Christian Science" is an oxymoron, and the piece is full of misleading phrasings, and some outright lies.

The NRA's position regarding the "terrorist watch list" is consistent with that of the ACLU and other organizations, namely that "watch lists" are based on suspicion alone, and that depriving anyone of any freedom on the basis of suspicion alone is a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process. If there is hard evidence that someone is engaged in terrorist activity, that person should be arrested and prosecuted; lacking probable cause, the government needs to back the fuck off (my phrasing, not the NRA's nor the ACLU's).

NRA policies handcuff national law enforcement's ability to effectively regulate private gun sales, gun shows, <...>

That's because law enforcement falls under the executive branch of government. Creating regulation is the purview of the legislature. Civics 101, hello!

<...> and even the sharing of crime-gun trace data within the law enforcement community.

Erm, that's just not true. The NRA supports the Tiahrt Amendments, which restrict the sharing of ATF gun trace data only to law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies can access trace data, provided it's in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. The only "handcuffing" taking place is that local authorities cannot use their police or sheriff's departments as proxies to troll through the ATF's databases at will. Call me strange, but I rather like the idea that government agencies can't share information without probable cause. This is especially important because the ATF's trace data does not only cover crime guns, as the CSM piece falsely implies. Local law enforcement agencies frequently request traces on recovered firearms just to make sure those firearms are not known to have been used in a crime, even if there's no compelling reason to suspect they have been.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Wasn't the late Sen. Kennedy on that list? N/T

[Euromutt]

76. No, some other Ted Kennedy was

But because the late senator had the same name, he got hassled. So did the wife of former senator Ted Stevens; her name's Catherine, but she goes by her nickname, "Cat."

So denying citizens a freedom on the basis that their name is on some un-overseen "watch list" means that government can not only do things to them on the basis of suspicion alone without due process, but that government can do things to them on the basis that it suspects somebody else with a similar name! Obviously, it's completely unreasonable for the NRA to be opposed to that.

[X_Digger]

56. Are you serious?

Maybe you should have actually searched for that quote elsewhere, you would have gotten the whole article with context..

“The problem with having background checks for every single gun purchase is that not every person is in the business of selling firearms. So if I were to inherit a firearm from a family member who passed away, I should not have to go through the ATF procedure to get a license and then to conduct background checks simply because I don’t need his rifle and I want to go to a gun show simply because I want to sell it to someone at the gun show person-to-person.

“When you go through background checks and have ATF licenses there are a lot of rules and regulations, as there should be, for people who are in the business of buying and selling firearms. But for individual persons who want to go to gun shows and perhaps sell a firearm that they don’t need anymore that they don’t want that they’ve inherited from someone, they should not have to become a federally licensed dealer to do so. That puts undo burdens on a law-abiding citizen who does not want the firearm but doesn’t want to throw it away.”

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070724006046&newsLang=en


Rather, if you'd bothered to do as friendly_iconoclast said, you'd have gotten this..

Some opponents of the “NICS Improvement Amendments Act” (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners—if it was true.

The opponents’ motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake—an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018

[safeinOhio]

65. My humble opinion is that

if FOX news is a branch or arm of the Republican party, it is the center of the party. The NRA is the FAR RIGHT WING of the Republican party. Of course FOX claims to be "fair and balanced" just as the NRA back tracks on statements it makes. Please check out, or google, the NRA taking points and claims about Obama, Clinton(either one) and then what they say about Sarah Palin and any other of the far right politicians. At least some one on FOX will say something fair about a progressive Dem once and a while. Not the NRA. It has never given any liberal Dem a higher rating than it has Sarah Palin. You guys, so far have bent over back wards to defend the NRA. I see several of you defenders of the NRA in this discussion fail to support the DU(lack stars)and no doubt are dues paying members of a far right organization opposed to about 95% of everything the members of DU stand for. I ended any support or connection to the NRA almost 35 years ago. I have picked up their mag a couple of times in the barber shop during presidential elections. Gore , Clinton and Obama. You are so quick to defend the NRA in this thread, now defend their support of Palin. I don't see how you can support any Dem that is supported here if you support the NRA. Take your 5 minute google search and get back to me on the liberal Dem they have anything to say positive about. While your doing your research, also find one far right Repub that they don't support over a liberal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. You need to either educate yourself, or stop the game playing

Why can you not cite what you object to from the NRA, directly?

You keep claiming "the NRA says this, that, and something else", (or words to that effect), and never provide a freaking link from them to back up what you claim they have said or are saying

Then you go on give us some weasel words about the NRA:

least some one on FOX will say something fair about a progressive Dem once and a while. Not the NRA. It has never given any liberal Dem a higher rating than it has Sarah Palin.....Take your 5 minute google search and get back to me on the liberal Dem they have anything to say positive about.

You either didn't know, or are ignoring Howard Dean's several "A" ratings from the NRA (amongst other Democrats like
James Webb and Bill Richardson)

They're not my favorite people in the world, frankly, but you cannot effectively counter them by spouting half-truth and rumor.

[safeinOhio]

68. Links are easy

You find a link where they say one bad thing about Palin

Then there is the link with Dean agreeing with me on states rights.

So, if Dean, Webb or Richardson ran against Palin, who would they support? just asking.


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4156
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox says "Governor Palin doesn't just talk about supporting the Second Amendment, it's part of her life, and she did her part to vindicate the Second Amendment for all Americans when Alaska joined 30 other states in signing a legal brief supporting Heller's challenge to the D.C. gun-ban." 



http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/04/palin-to-be-honored-by-nra-with-special-m4-like-assault-rifle/

Special gift
According to American Rifleman, the National Rifle Association will feature a custom made AR-15 made specifically for Governor Palin at its upcoming annual banquet.
The all-white “Alaskan Hunter” is modeled after an M-4 and its .50 caliber Beowulf chamber leaves one former Special Forces veteran impressed.


Former VT Governor; Former Democratic Candidate for President
Different states need different gun laws
Q: Don’t you think your stance that gun control laws should vary state by state ignores the fact that guns can easily travel across state lines and be used in crimes in states different from where they were purchased?
A: I come from a rural state with a very low homicide state and no gun control other than the federal laws. I support those federal laws vigorously. Hunters don’t need AK-47s to shoot deer and most hunters I know don’t believe that it should be easier for criminals to get their hands on guns, but I know that states like California and New Jersey want more gun control than that. I believe that they should be allowed to pass what gun controls they think they need, but that it is unreasonable to apply laws that may be necessary in California to rural states like Montana or Vermont. The cross border issue has been resolved in one case: Virginia now limits the availability of gun purchases because so many Virginia guns were turning up in New York City illegally.
Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

Did the NRA support this statement by Dean? It sure would have put him out of the running with Palin

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. If "Links are easy", why couldn't you do them earlier?

Nice of you to finally find a link to a NRA.

And of course they like Palin, the NRA-ILA is a single-issue pressure group. Democrats being what they are these days,
they will of course be endorsing the Pubbie in any race - most of the time. Not always.

I'd imagine NARAL liked Scozzafava in the NY-23 Congressional race, even though she is a Republican

There'll be no endorsement of Mike Bloomberg from the NRA, naturally.

And as for "state's rights":

Do you support Caliornia's right to pass Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage?

I'm not asking you whether you support the proposition itself, just the legitimacy of it's passage
by a majority of voters in that particular election.

[safeinOhio]

70. I have not read anything about that prop.

In most cases that don't violate the 14th I support state rights. I supported the right of California to vote on same-sex marriage, but not happy about the outcome. I do have hope that it will soon be overturned by the voters. I am more than happy to see a few, like you are interested in other issues. Also glad that you did not challenge the quote by Dean. I feel he has a valid point about how gun laws are better left to states on some issues. Other than you, I don't see the others chiming in on that or other progressive issues. On a local level I have been involved with social action groups that work on multi-cultural issue in our community. Our group has helped in getting our local conservative Republican Rep to cross over and vote for a bill that would bring GLBT issues under our state civil rights laws. It is a start, but will be a bigger challenge to pass it in the stat Senate.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. I'm still waiting on that quote where you accused me of enabling. Be a man and step up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Palin has been a staunch advocate of 2nd Amendment rights why wouldn't they give her a high rating?

[X_Digger]

71. Boy when you get it wrong, you do it right!

"It has never given any liberal Dem a higher rating than it has Sarah Palin"

Here's the ratings for TN-

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4259

16 (R) A+'s and 5 (D) A+'s

So while technically true (there IS NO higher rating than A+,) many dems have received that same rating from the NRA. They have also endorsed democrats over republicans when both have the same grade (see the current District 99 race in VA, where the NRA has endorsed Albert Pollard (D) over Catherine Crabill (R) - both have an 'A' rating.)

The NRA is a single issue organization. They don't give a hoot about any other issue. That is the only criteria they grade on. If I want to know how a candidate ranks on gun control issues, I check nrapvf.org. If I want to know other issues, I check other sites. Do you have some problem with an organization whose sole focus is the second amendment using criteria related to that single issue to dole out grades?

Funny aside, the NRA gave more money to Democrats than the Brady bunch did in the last election cycle.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. I don't want anymore controls on assault weapons. Is that extreme?

[safeinOhio]

55. I don't want criminals to be able to purchase them

so, am I extreme in wanting background checks on those that purchase them or any firearm?

[PavePusher]

60. If they are buying them from a firearms dealer...

that is already in effect.

What is it that you want?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Who doesn't want that?

[DrCory]

35. That is NOT what you said...

"I'm only pointing out an easier way than just having your gun by your bed and thinking you are safe."

No, you are suggesting that those who do not agree with you absolutely are hoping to have the opportunity to shoot someone:

"If one does not take advantage of those options too, they most likely are just hoping to use their 2nd Amendment tools."

In other words: "If you disagree with me you are either bloodthirsty or insane". A cheap, bullying tactic.

[oneshooter]

36. "and law suits from the family of the crook"

Not in Texas. If the law finds you innocent, not guilty, or no bills you then there can be no lawsuits.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. What statement did I make that enables them?

I don't have yappy dogs. I have 5 over 50 lbs, 1 over 70 lbs and a puppy. I also have motion sensor lights and I live on a corner of a well traveled street. Anyone choosing to break into my house has only the worst of intents. Firearms, that I am well trained with, give me the best chance of defending myself against an armed intruder while limiting the possibility of injury to my dogs. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have a shoot first mentality.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. Still waiting on some answers here.

[proteus_lives]

13. No thank you.

If someone breaks into your home, the safest response is lethal force. Don't give them the chance to get up and come at you.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. No. Those are dangerous for a defender to use.

There is serious risk in relying on those. Pepper spray used inside a room can effect me too, and may not work on a goblin high on drugs or adrenaline. The other stuff requires that the defender get within contact range, and that's too close.

With a gun I can fight from a distance. Yes, it will be messy, but I would rather clean up his blood than mine.

[1]

12. i have an alarm system at home. it sounds like this: *bad guy breaks in*...

and the alarm goes:

"BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM"

[safeinOhio]

15. Your shoot first attitude is why we have

"gun grabbers". Sounds like you might even leave the door open just so you can BAM-BAM-BAM. Why not secure your home so the chances of an intruder are less? Trust me, if someone gets past the lights, alarms, signs and secure doors and windows, I have every right and will BAM-BAM-BAM.

[oneshooter]

16. Why should I lock myself into my home?

If the door is closed that means "knock on the door", if it is open that means "knock on the jamb". Either way it is illegal to just walk into a strangers home. Doing so puts you at risk of grave bodily harm.
I do not believe in creating a locked, guarded, alarmed fortress to live in. That is living in fear, which is no way for a free citizen to live.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

18. Also, it is not my duty to make my home impenetrable.

It is the criminals duty to stay the hell out. If s/he fails to do so, the consequences are their responsibility.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Actually, it IS your duty to do exactly that..

Your duty is the safety of your family, and of yourself. Adding some reasonable levels of protection, such as reinforced doors and locks, alarms, adds to your family's safety. If it deters the goblin, that's fine. If the goblin tries your home anyway, then it alerts you in time to be ready. Those measure take away the element of surprise from him. Now he has the tactical problem of attacking into a prepared, ensconced, defender.

[PavePusher]

23. Looking at it that way, yes, you are correct.

I was refuting the idea that I must go out of my way to take preventive measures so that a criminal will not have to risk getting shot.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. From that view, I agree completely.

I take those measures to improve my chances of being able to shoot the goblin. If those measures deter the goblin, that's OK too.

[Euromutt]

49. I think that's the distinction lies in to whom the duty is owed

It's your duty to your loved ones and yourself to harden your perimeter; it is not your duty to society in general to prevent other members of that society from violating the law.

[rd_kent]

28. No need for lights, alarms, signs, etc.

WHy should we fear each other? Why does the one infringing on MY rights need to be coddled? Why does the one infringing on MY rights need to overcome additional obstacles on MY property before I am justified in using my last obstacle? The solution is simple (and simplistic only to make a point)....dont trespass.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. In fairness.

While I agree with your general premise, ounce of prevention and all that...

I OUGHT to be able to leave my door wide open at night, and remain unmolested. But unrealistic ideals aside, mitigating risk is far better than the alternative.

[burrfoot]

64. Any chance

that you shoot a Glock?

17 BLAMS without even a hiccup.... :)


As noted, though, you may want to watch the impression you make on the internets. If you ever did have to defend yourself this is probably the kind of stuff a prosecutor would cream his pants over.

I don't mean to sound like a dad. You're an adult. Just my .02

(nothing against dads) :toast:

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Proving once again that bluffing with a gun is a good way to get shot.

The guy with the BB gun almost certainly had one of those models that looks real. Obviously the defender thought it was real, and acted accordingly.

[Javaman]

22. Never bring a BB gun to a gun fight. nt

[spin]

25. K&R (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Good article. Cogent comments . -1 to the under-bridge dweller

n/t

[JonQ]

50. The only thing less intelligent than breaking in to a house in TX

armed with a gun, is breaking in to a house in TX armed with something that looks like a gun. All the same incentive for the homeowner to shoot you, but none of the chance of taking him out first.

A win for the homeowner and possibly society if the perp decides to turn his life around. Or at least move to a gun free state to rob people in safety.

[SteveM]

75. This follows close-on other similar home-invasion incidents...

one involving a pellet gun used by one of the break-in boys. He ended up shot dead. Police suspect that San Marcos has been targeted by gang wannabees along the I-35 corridor, from San Antonio-up. Because it is a laid-back college town (probably as counter-culture as Austin/U.T.), San Marcos and Texas State have some how developed a reputation as "easy pickings." Poor social analysis on the part of the gang-bangers.