I think you are naive in terms of what it can do to a psyche to take a human life. While not having a party, he did not have to say he 'would take it back if he could' unless that's what he feels. Maybe you're right though, we'll never know... If you ever do shoot some thief who is running away with your TV, please let us know how gratifying it is.

And if you do so not knowing if he (she?) has a gun and plans on swinging around and making your children mommyless, have fun knowing you'll sleep better in your grave...After all...you did the right thing...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Well, the thing is I would be safely in my home with my children waiting for the police. I've already stated it would be a different story if the thieves were in my home. On another note... I would gladly give my life to do the right thing, whatever that may be. I entrust it (my life) to a higher power.

Again, I'm talking about the LAW and its justification, and not just "this guy".
The law has no concern over whether Horn was a sharpshooter, or just a 18-year old guy who found his dad's gun which he had never used before.

It's that failure to distinguish which is part of the reason I say the LAW is messed up.

Furthermore, we DO test the 16-year olds. You may not like how little you think it is, but it IS there.
What "training" is required for gun ownership?
What would the law say if this guy had absolutely NO training?


No. That's just plain obfuscation.
If you think the risk to the bystander is outweighed by the possibility of killing a thief, I think that's totally messed up.
You can't use one scenario to ignore the other.


There are gun advocates who USE this argument, so whining it's a "suppose" is kind of shallow.


Two possibilities you have to compare.
I think the solution is to focus on getting the guns restricted from people who have no business having them.
NOT in allowing even more people to have them.

__________________
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, February 28, 1797

very nice

I think I see a point here somewhere, but your flag annalogy doesn't hold up. Burning a flag, while despicable in some people's eyes, is protected by freedom of speech. And I don't see us losing that right. No matter how many object.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

Honestly, I'd just rationalize it away by saying that's what the government trained me to do. I was an top rated marksman during my time in the service. Trained to shoot and kill people I didn't even know. Would have done so without hesitation. If I saw someone stealing MY crap, call the cops and a coroner. Out of sight out of mind. At least in this case it would be a lot more personal than an unknown human on a building 500 yards away.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Just like the true skills of a 16 year old driver is hardly tested in most rudimentary driving tests. The risk is much greater for the gen-pop with a incompetent 16 year old driving a car than people shooting at robbers.

Probably nothing. But then again, it's also your responsibility if you miss. Just as there is a law for when 16 year old drivers screw up. IF he had missed, and hurt someone, there are laws for assault. And insurance and civil suits for remedies. Even if the law had forbid him from shooting, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have or that he would have been punished.

But yet you can use a myriad whatifs to try and say there is something wrong with this law.
If the guys were still in Mexico or still being laborers, all this would have been avoided. Your "whatifs" aren't just as much obfuscation? Puleeeze. The man did exactly what the law was designed for. And even if there was no law, he still would be right and should not be forced to pay a lawyer his lifes savings to avoid prosecution.

It's a good argument. Works in many states, including mine, where you can carry concealed. Why not a school?

And I think this case shows that some people should have guns. Besides, this was a shotgun, they have never been banned.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

1) "hardly tested" vs "no testing" for gun ownership.
"Hardly tested" is incredibly subjective. I don't agree with your assessment of "hardly tested".

2) Along the lines of "driving", in addition to driving testing / licensing / renewal and car registration => gun owner testing and licensing guns...
There is another angle of car drivers being required to carry insurance. I think something similar could be in order for gun owners, especially if they insist on carrying.


We have laws that require people drive on the streets. They can't drive on the sidewalks.
It doesn't matter if the driver doesn't hit anybody on the side-walk. He still can't drive there.

Likewise, just because an injured party can sue doesn't excuse poor use when the shooter gets lucky and his (hypothetical!) carelessness doesn't hurt others.


No.
The basis of the law and its boundaries are evaluated through potential scenarios. I'm simply evaluating the legal situation by examining the boundaries of what the law allows.


In at least 38 states, they disagree.
I suspect that the number of states that allow people to do what Horn did in Texas to be incredibly small.
Unfortunately, the informative resource you gave earlier links to "legalese" of the individual state laws, so I can't narrow it down further...
(but it was a lot better than nothing.)


I've read stories where a kid was punished because another kid saw the first kid with a weapon, like a knife or a gun.
But in your scenario, the first kid is allowed to. While a metal detector could have prevented or discouraged him from bringing that gun onto school grounds, you would declare he has a right to do so right up until the moment he first squeezes the trigger.

And nobody can say a damn word about it. Another person seeing the gun wouldn't prevent it, cause the other person has no recourse.

Your argument is like arguing for the legalization to CARRY drugs, but actually USING them would be illegal...


Allow me to make plain that I am not arguing against "some people should have guns". I agree with you here.
I can't think of anything in my personal opinion which would have prevented Horn from having the gun.
I object to how he used it.

I was speaking generically regarding generic gun control laws.