Who owns guns and you carry?

Were gonna have to poll the jury but I believe adding thanks is considered a post Lang.

Sharing support or approval by actively performing an action within the thread= Post

Maybe you should have said comment. But I know how you like to confuse words. I'm sure that's what it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annarose15

Easy fix to accidental and/or drunken idiocy - Lock your doors! I don't carry (but intend to eventually). However, I always lock my doors and close my garage. If someone is mysteriously in my house, they will meet the business end of my baseball bat BEFORE I ask them why they are there!

---

Careful! We don't need bats banned too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KMG

Careful! We don't need bats banned too.

---

;) No way - it's America's official pastime! Even if bats aren't actually allowed in stadiums anymore!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3skulls

I have to lay low on New Years Eve. Sounds like a freaking war going on.

What do you guys think of Sig Sauer?
I was thinking of a P250 or P229

---

My agency carry/issue weapon is a Sig P220. Great guns and very well made but HEAVY! Ours are only single stack with 8 rounds versus the Glock 21, which is quite a bit lighter with a larger carry capacity. Another drawback to the Sigs is whatever they use to treat their metal with; not sure if it's Parkerized or what but if the humidity is above 20%, you'll start getting rust. I take care of and maintain my weapons religiously, as my life or those of my friends/someone else might depend on how well it functions and in spite of that, they rust. They're well made and reliable but if I had my choice, I'd take an HK or a Glock over them for a carry weapon, especially for concealed due to the weight issue. The weight of the gun, not my weight...hahahahaha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbie.dragon

I definitely agree. Hell I've had drunk friends accidentally going into the wrong house in themiddle of the night. (I have no idea how he got in to the housel I would be horrifie
ed if someone thought "oh my neighbor is being robbed. Let's shoot them"

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

---

There are a two issues here.

1. She has had FRIENDS(more than one) do this.

2. Has no idea how this friend got in. A FRIEND would tell you the details. If they left that out it was probably because the way they got in was bad.

Or

3. The friend doesn't remember how he got in and left without checking it out and making sure they did not damage the property while being stupid while drunk. Therefore breaking the law and not paying the damage.


I saw a drunk run from one house and kick the front door in on another. Then it turned out he didn't belong to either house. Who would not be scared in this situation and act. Shooting him would be justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KMG

Think about this.

You see a man dressed in black crawl out of your neighbors window. You can see they are taking items but your not sure what. Maybe stolen guns to be used in other crimes, maybe just jewelry and a playstation. Not sure but you know its property.

You confront them and tell then to stop. They don't and they run away.

You call the police and they check on your neighbor. They find that they were killed in a struggle with the intruder. Now with nothing to go on but your statement of "a man dressed in black" (We call that "the usual" since that's all we usually get), and not knowing for sure what was taken solving this crime is near impossible.

Despite what CSI shows do on tv we are a for way from that in the real world.

Now back up a bit.

You confront thm and tell them to stop. They don't and they get shot.

You call the police and they check on your neighbor. They find that they were killed in a struggle with the intruder. Now with the criminal dead or in the hospital we know who did it. If they are dead they will never do it again. If just wounded we at least can send them to court for their crimes.


My point is you never know for certain that the criminal is not going to harm you or if they have already harmed another. But you can be sure that if they are not stopped they will commit more crimes. Maybe the next time against you.

---

Well this is a bit different scenario than I was talking about, because you added in the fact that this guy has already killed.

I still don't think a criminal should be shot for JUST stealing things, even if they are guns. I see what you're trying to say here, but I'm commenting more on the idea that Mr. Joe Blow saw some guy running away with his TV and that he for some reason has the right to shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KMG

So drunk you go in the wrong house? Seriously? How does that fit in the convo at all? That belongs on the "Worlds Dumbest" shows.

If you get shot because you are so drunk you go into the wrong house you deserve it.

---

Not going to lie, I've gone to the wrong house (when I lived in a house) AND wrong building before. They all look the same and I was new to the areas both times.

I hope I'm not one of the "Worlds Dumbest" because I'm headed off to teach this year!!

:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annarose15

;) No way - it's America's official pastime! Even if bats aren't actually allowed in stadiums anymore!

---

Only until it gets replaced by futbol, i mean soccer. At least Houston soccer team wins stuff. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatandDiallo

Well this is a bit different scenario than I was talking about, because you added in the fact that this guy has already killed.

I still don't think a criminal should be shot for JUST stealing things, even if they are guns. I see what you're trying to say here, but I'm commenting more on the idea that Mr. Joe Blow saw some guy running away with his TV and that he for some reason has the right to shoot.




Not going to lie, I've gone to the wrong house (when I lived in a house) AND wrong building before. They all look the same and I was new to the areas both times.

I hope I'm not one of the "Worlds Dumbest" because I'm headed off to teach this year!!

:oops:

---

That's the issue. You have a second to decide what to do with a small piece of the puzzle.Everything would be easy if we had the whole story, which the news rarely gives. Then you have all the time you need to Monday morning quarterback it and say it was wrong. Think outside the box and think about what could go through your mind as your dealing with a shoot don't shoot situation.

Yea the guy walking down the street with a stolen tv didn't need to be shot but no body here said he does. However coming out of the window could be a different story.

I guess I pay closer attention to detail because I have never tried to enter the wrong house or apartment. Still not budging though. If you get shot or beat for it, its still your fault.

For the record I would rather be shot than beat with a bat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatandDiallo

Well this is a bit different scenario than I was talking about, because you added in the fact that this guy has already killed.

I still don't think a criminal should be shot for JUST stealing things, even if they are guns. I see what you're trying to say here, but I'm commenting more on the idea that Mr. Joe Blow saw some guy running away with his TV and that he for some reason has the right to shoot.




Not going to lie, I've gone to the wrong house (when I lived in a house) AND wrong building before. They all look the same and I was new to the areas both times.

I hope I'm not one of the "Worlds Dumbest" because I'm headed off to teach this year!!

:oops:

---

As an officer, I would agree with you regarding the property theft versus deadly force part of what you're saying. I (and all law enforcement, for that matter) operate under very clear guidelines of when we can and cannot use deadly force. We have departmental/agency policies, state law, Federal law and case law handed down from common law back in the day in jolly old England, not to mention legal updates that come down each year if not more often from the Supreme Court of the United States from their rulings on officer-involved incidents. That said, I operate under a much more restrictive environment than what does a civilian. I have been involved in situations in which I would have been legally justified in using deadly force but chose not to. My goal as a police officer is to preserve life, end of story. If that means taking someone elses life to prevent them killing another, so be it. However, as soon as their deadly/aggressive actions cease, I am legally and morally obligated to render aid to them to try and prevent their demise. Consider that dichotomy for a second.

I agree with you in large part that no, deadly force to protect property is not justified without extenuating circumstances of some sort. This is a case by case basis and you can't make a blanket statement that if x, then y, therefore z. Are there situations where a forcible felony involving property is being committed in which deadly force is justified? Absolutely! In every situation? Not necessarily. I'm not a trigger happy bozo looking to carve notches on my gun or to get "street cred" for "wasting" someone but if my life or that of my family or the citizens of the state I have sworn to protect is in jeopardy, I'll do what I need to given the situation. I carry off duty for a very good reason, as does my wife: I arrest people. People don't tend to look or remember fondly those encounters. I knew the risks I was assuming when I signed up for this job and I'm okay with that. My family, however, is completely separate from the risks my job entails, as they didn't make that decision to put on a vest and badge while carrying a gun day in and day out. If criminals played fair, I wouldn't have a job or be needed. Until such time as they do, I'm going armed when I go out just on the off chance, however microscopic the possibility, that someone decides today is the day to get revenge on me via the ones I love most for some action I took against them in the course of my profession.

^
Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate you taking the time to write this post out and I wouldn't consider you trigger happy.

Although, some people in this thread seem to be and that's what scares me.