Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 21:36:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
837 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Trobaugh writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> >
> > > > That argument won't stand up in court. Well, maybe it will in Texas...
> > >
> > >
> > > Here’s where I got this: http://64.78.178.125/stat00/index.htm
> > > Need I say more?
> >
> > (clipping lengthy legal text - see previous message if you need to)
> >
> > No, you needn't say more: it's reassuring that I got it right. You can't
> > shoot someone for stealing a crust of bread. There has to be the reasonable
> > belief that the person is going to do something extremely dangerous
> > (physical assault, arson, kidnap, murder. etc.). Someone being in your
> > house uninvited is NOT open season to shoot first and ask questions later.
> > It's pretty darn clear about it.
> >
> > Bruce
>
>
> Awww, but it does say that you "believe" they are going to cause you harm.
> If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to "believe" that they could be
> there to cause harm to my family or myself. I will not first ask them their
> intentions, when it comes to my family shooting first will be my response.
*Reasonable* belief is what the text refers to. I can't make a better case
for there needing to be a required course and test on firearm safety and law
than the various responses I'm getting. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Well Bruce, I'll let you in on the fact that I worked for the Fulton County Sheriff's department for 4 years, and was well trained on how to use my firearm. Also I was very aware of what intruders can do when they break into a person's home, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Well, IANAL but the text does treat someone in your domicile as a special case. Still, the class I took in Florida did go into this, and you don't get to just brandish your gun or pop off whenever you feel like, there has to be some (as Bruce (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Sorry, Bruce, but if someone breaks into my dwelling, I'm not going to Debate with him as to his intent. BREAKING IN shows the intent, as far as I'm concerned. They'd better be ready to accept the consequences for their action. -- Tom Stangl (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Awww, but it does say that you "believe" they are going to cause you harm. If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to "believe" that they could be there to cause harm to my family or myself. I will not first ask them their intentions, when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
