Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not an expert, just a person with common sense. Why would you want to shoot from the shoulder in close quarters?
it is accurate and more stable , additional there are other shooting positions that allow you to shoot on the move..but from the hip is wreckless unless at really really close ranges...standing still
It makes a lot more sense to shoot from the hip.
no it doesnt..see above
I've never seen a SWAT team member use a shotgun with a stock unless it was a wire folding stock.
every cop i have met and every shotgun i have carried and used in the military and law enforcement had a stock, and if it was a folding stock it was extended. not saying they dont exist becasue they do, but a stock is way more practical (for the record i own a straight pistol grip and have trained for CQB with it) then without
No matter what your view on the subject I'll stick with what I've got. Should I ditch my light too and just fire at whatever I hear in the dark?
he might know a little more then you
Well for starters I work for a living and don't have the time or money to fly to Oregon and pay thousands of dollars to take tactical shooting courses.
blah blah blah, feeling inadequate much? they are available locally in most places and dont cost thousands of dollars..
I'm sure you could outshoot me any day. However, I'm not a law enforcement officer and its not my job to be a USPSA Grand Master. My primary use for firearms is to kill animals, not people.
fair enough
No candidate that I've ever supported has ever threatened my right to defend my home or hunt. I also vote on more than one issue as 99.99% of the population does. I support the right to unionize as much as I do the right to keep and bear arms.
Could you easily sit quietly in your house when you know your neighbor's being robbed?
I would not "sit quietly". I would get my gun ready, call the cops, wait for them to arrive.
Quote:
It's great to stick to the facts when concerning what happened, but don't forget: although they never entered his house they were NEVER given the chance.
And it wasn't up to the shooter to obviate that chance by killing them in the first place.
Quote:
Facts are great to consider, but they aren't the only factors. A lot of things DIDN'T happen because the robbers weren't given the chance. It is up in the air what 'could've' happened if the neighbor didn't act.
And not for nothing, but when the man instructed them not to move, why, ooooh why were they compelled to do so?
Why was the shooter compelled to exit his house against the dispatcher's orders in the first place? To take "preventive" measures? Either way you look at it, the situation was needlessly exacerbated by his presence, resulting in needless fatalities.
According to MrSykes information he lives in Houston, given his sympathies, I think he lives in the WRONG state. No matter how long his opinion is spoken, that is not going to change in Texas.
That's your opinion. Thank goodness we Houstonians aren't a monolithic people.
Quote:
The laws governing the right to carry a gun and using it to defend oneself and ones property are on the side of the individual trying to protect their home, property and person, not on the side of the criminal.
You said it yourself. This portion of your post demonstrates an accurate understanding of the Texas Castle Doctrine. Note the bolded text. My argument has simply been that the shooter's actions clearly escape the provisions of this law.
I never stated that the police were to babysit, my statement was that the problem lies within our Justice system that allows prior crimes to go unpunished and add to that an inadequate number of police officers. I don't agree that lack of policing has lead to higher crime.
Crime was actually lower in the late 1990s when that Clinton era "money for community policing" was around. The Bush administration decided not to renew whatever program that was.
Anyway, you can check it out because the details were documented. Communities received money that was specifically to be used to hire extra police -- the money was for salaries.
The city I used to live in (here in Los Angeles) passed a special tax many years ago that was only to be used for hiring extra police. It was something like $20 per year for each housing unit (house or apartment or business). The money could only be used for police salaries -- not for anything administrative. The police presence in that town was HUGE! The crime rate was super low too. I called them once for noisy neighbors (a lot of other people called too). They sent out 8 cars! The neighbor's kid thought he was going to be the next Master DJ until the police confiscated his speakers and equipment and made him go to court to get them back!
Seriously, I think when it comes to police, you get what you pay for.
Why was the shooter compelled to exit his house against the dispatcher's orders in the first place? To take "preventive" measures? Either way you look at it, the situation was needlessly exacerbated by his presence, resulting in needless fatalities.
After reading the transcript of the whole call (again!), it seems to me that Mr. Horn really wanted to test that new law that passed. Perhaps if it hadn't passed, he would have just stayed in his house like a good guy. However, since they passed a law that said that you didn't have to retreat, he was going to take full advantage of it and go out and blow those guys away.
I thought about moving to Texas at one time (mostly because houses are cheaper) but I read stories like this and I think "Nah..."
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for people "not making themselves victims" but I think a lot of that has to do with using your brain, not your gun. What chills me is that 1/2 of these people are perfect victims for a burglar that wants a weapon. I've got to wonder how many people have their guns stolen in Texas every year?
Originally Posted by cremebrulee View Post
Yanno, its about darn time this started happening in Philly...I'm sick and tired of these worthless animals who are constantly killing innocent by standers...and the police officers who are killed....sheesh....it's just not right, and it is time, Philly and any other city in the U.S. clean up these criminals....
You shoot these guys to warn them, and as soon as they're out of prison, they go right back to crime. The percentage of criminals that are reformed is 1-2 %. You have to remember, crime is a culture, these people do not know any different...they were raised to believe that it's ok to do what they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose31
I totally agree!
Given this logic would it also be safe to say that priest who molest little boys don't know any different because they were raised to believe it's ok. Or does this only apply to people of color?
And if these people (who have Spanish names and black faces) were raised this way is it also safe to say that America was founded on violence so violence was taught by whom?
I would not "sit quietly". I would get my gun ready, call the cops, wait for them to arrive.
And it wasn't up to the shooter to obviate that chance by killing them in the first place.
Why was the shooter compelled to exit his house against the dispatcher's orders in the first place? To take "preventive" measures? Either way you look at it, the situation was needlessly exacerbated by his presence, resulting in needless fatalities.
I have no idea why the shooter was compelled to leave his house...why were the robbers compelled to rob the place, and move when they were told not to?
Why was the shooter compelled to exit his house against the dispatcher's orders in the first place? To take "preventive" measures? Either way you look at it, the situation was needlessly exacerbated by his presence, resulting in needless fatalities.
Needless fatalities for persons doing absolutely nothing good. Armed citizens taking law into their hands is a bold testament to the flaws in our system
That's your opinion. Thank goodness we Houstonians aren't a monolithic people.
You said it yourself. This portion of your post demonstrates an accurate understanding of the Texas Castle Doctrine. Note the bolded text. My argument has simply been that the shooter's actions clearly escape the provisions of this law.
Thanks for furthering my argument.
Maybe you should read the law again because it doesn't say you can only use lethal force to protect your own property. It can be anyone's property. You would think with someone who has so much to say, you would have read the doctrine better then that. I did put a link to it, apparently no one wants to read what it actually says because they know it will be against them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
