TexasCHLforum.com

What is it with some women? When I told an ex-girlfriend that I wanted to sit my motorcycle test, she asked how much it would cost. When I told her, she replied, 'Oh well, there'll be enough left over for a pine box'. When I told my mother that I'd be moving to Texas, she cried, 'please don't get involved with guns!!' Note the choice of words? 'involved with' guns, like people get 'involved with' drugs, or 'involved with' gangs. In her mind, gun == death.

When in Texas last month, I asked a member of my family to take me to a gun shop, and they just sort of laughed, and changed the subject. I asked them again. And again. Each time, they looked at me like at some sexual pervert who was desperate to victimise innocent children. Eventually, my eldest niece took me, and whilst I was talking to the owner, she sat texting her friends. Her attention soon perked up, however, when the shop owner told her that she was 'a very beautiful young woman' (she is), and that she needed a gun. 'He thinks I should carry one,' she said, nodding at me.

The depressing thing is that (G-d forbid), if she ever becomes a victim, her opinion will change pretty quickly. I don't have any desire for her to shoot anyone, but nor do I want to spend the rest of my life putting flowers on her grave (even writing those words, my eyes sting...).

As for the religious aspect, I dunno what Christianity teaches, but in Judaism, it is not permitted to place oneself in danger of death. The principle is that this life is only partly ours. It was given to us by G-d, and we are obliged not only to serve Him, but to look after our body until He (and He alone) decides to claim our soul back.

In Judaism, we have a prayer that we recite every morning called birkhote hacha'har, which means 'morning blessing'. Translated from Hebrew, it goes...

G-d, the soul that You placed within me is pure. It is You who created it, You who formed it, You who breathed it into me, You who keeps it within me. You will take it back one day, in order to give it back [reference to the Resurrection of the Dead]

So if the original poster's GF is at all religious, he might like to remind her that according to all religious theory with which I am familiar, self defence is not 'anti-G-d'. On the contrary: it furthers His will.

rather be killed than defended thats about dumb
she needs her head checked and some meds to go with it
go buy you another gun and forget that ring man

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364983,00.html

show your girlfriend this and ask her if she still thinks the same way. This is why people need to defend themselves. Very graphic story.

"rather be killed than defended" .. well what happens when the attacker doesn't want to kill you.

preceptor wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364983,00.html

show your girlfriend this and ask her if she still thinks the same way. This is why people need to defend themselves. Very graphic story.

"rather be killed than defended" .. well what happens when the attacker doesn't want to kill you.

Horrifying story.

His lawyer, Arnold Levine, agreed that the identification hurt the defendant, although Williams has offered no discernible defense.
"It's always damning when a witness identifies your client," he said.

No kidding, Einstein.

Lock this animal up and throw away the key.

That looks like one of those cases where the Japanese(?) solution would be better.

Firing squad and make the perp's family pay for the bullets.

As it is, even "life in prison with no possibility of parole" is better than that (expletive deleted, due to ten-year-old-daughter rule) deserves.

LarryH wrote:That looks like one of those cases where the Japanese(?) solution would be better.

Firing squad and make the perp's family pay for the bullets.

As it is, even "life in prison with no possibility of parole" is better than that (expletive deleted, due to ten-year-old-daughter rule) deserves.

Nah, you're thinking of China (edit: Japan uses hanging), but I'd heard that they were moving towards lethal injection. The bullet method is rather messy, as it's not a firing squad aiming at the heart, but the condemned is made to kneel and two guards hold him whilst turning their heads to avoid splinters of skull. An AK-47 is then fired into the base of their brain.

It's not pretty. I've seen some jpgs where the condemned's skull looks like it's been cleaved with an axe.

I'm against the death penalty, but in the case we're discussing right now, I'd want to ask that guy: why?? Why did he take an apparent delight in making another human being suffer so?? What did she do -- what could she possibly have done to merit that?

israel67 wrote:I'm against the death penalty

Not very Texican of you.

"My state is putting in an express lane." - Ron White, Texas comedian.

Just kidding.

Anygunanywhere

israel67 wrote: I'm against the death penalty

So you’re in favor of the death penalty, i.e. the use of deadly force to PREVENT a violent episode,

But you are against the death penalty AFTER the fact?

I find this dichotomy fascinating.

shaggydog wrote:

israel67 wrote: I'm against the death penalty

So you’re in favor of the death penalty, i.e. the use of deadly force to PREVENT a violent episode,

But you are against the death penalty AFTER the fact?

I find this dichotomy fascinating.

shaggydog wrote:

israel67 wrote: I'm against the death penalty

So you’re in favor of the death penalty, i.e. the use of deadly force to PREVENT a violent episode,

But you are against the death penalty AFTER the fact?

I find this dichotomy fascinating.

Oh no ... I'd sworn not to get into politics ....

OK .. briefly.

You can shoot someone to protect life. It's called self defence. Once the threat is over, i.e. the BG is running away, would you shoot him?

So if you wouldn't kill someone who has ceased to be a threat ten seconds ago and is running away, how is it OK to kill him ten years later when he's been inside a cell (and thus by definition not a threat to anyone)?

Not forgetting that we cannot derogate to the state, rights and powers which we do not have as individuals. If we can't kill except in self defence, then neither can the state.

Anyway ... tum tee-tum ... what's the weather like in the Lone Star State?

i call it crime prevention

israel67 wrote:You can shoot someone to protect life. It's called self defence. Once the threat is over, i.e. the BG is running away, would you shoot him?

The question is whether or not the act was perpetrated.

That is to say that I would probably not fire on an individual that was running away from me if no act of violence had been committed, however,

You can bet your boots that if I happened upon an individual in the act of harming one of my loved ones, and that individual decides to leave at that very moment, I would not hesitate to immediately dispense the appropriate justice. To his face or otherwise.

Toward that end, I DO authorize the state, on my behalf, to euthanize “after the fact�.

Kythas wrote:So I got in a fight with my girlfriend this weekend about carrying. She can't believe that, when I told her I was getting my CHL and told her I'd be carrying a gun, I meant that I'd really be carrying a gun.

She even went so far as to say she'd rather a BG kill her or me than have me kill someone in defense of her or my life. I brought up the shootings at VA Tech and the church in Colorado and mentioned that someone with a CHL at VA Tech (if it were legal to carry on campus) could have stopped the killer and saved many lives, much as the woman in Colorado did. She actually responded with "How do you know it wasn't their time to go and that's what was meant to happen?"

Arguments of mine that "How do you know if we're ever in that situation and I'm armed, it's not HIS time to go and I was meant to stop him?" fell on deaf ears.

Has anyone else ever had this "discussion" with your significant other?

Has this person given any rational reason for not wanting you to carry a gun, or has it been a feelings-based argument?

As to her question regarding ones time to go, I suppose one could argue that this would require knowing the mind of God. Barring that knowledge, God has seen fit to gift humans with the same willingness to fight for their own survival that has been granted to all life that we know of. Since I do not (and arguably cannot) know the mind of God, I will fight for the survival of myself and my loved ones to the best of my ability. To do anything less seems to me to be a slap in the face of the Almighty, and that I will NOT do.

Her argument is a pacifists argument, and if she is truly unwilling to fight for her own life (and genuine pacifists are rare), your best choice is likely to find someone who has more respect for themselves and for their own offspring and loved ones.

israel67 wrote: So if you wouldn't kill someone who has ceased to be a threat ten seconds ago and is running away, how is it OK to kill him ten years later when he's been inside a cell (and thus by definition not a threat to anyone)?

The capital murderers convicted in Texas, and many other criminals, do not cease to be a threat to society, the other prisoners, or the prison guards just because they are in a cell.

The largest responsibility of a society and governments is to protect the citizens.

There is only one way to guarantee the murderers kill no more. That is the execution chamber in Huntsville.

It is being readied as I write this for the first one this year after the latest round of useless irrelevant appeals. They knew the rules when they did the crime. Their families will finally see justice for their loved ones.

The weather is hot, but quite bearable by the pool. The new ozone and salt chlorine generator are an upgrade we should have done sooner. Nice.

Anygunanywhere

israel67 wrote:
Oh no ... I'd sworn not to get into politics ....
OK .. briefly.
You can shoot someone to protect life. It's called self defence. Once the threat is over, i.e. the BG is running away, would you shoot him?

So if you wouldn't kill someone who has ceased to be a threat ten seconds ago and is running away, how is it OK to kill him ten years later when he's been inside a cell (and thus by definition not a threat to anyone)?

Anyway ... tum tee-tum ... what's the weather like in the Lone Star State?

What are you going to do when he comes back armed or with friends? When your wife is home alone? Also, they tend to get out of the cell quickly nowadays, with a bad attitude towards you.
Ok, the BG knew the repercussions of his act if he was caught, he gambled, he lost. 10 days or 10 years it makes no difference the punishment is the same. The sad part is that it takes 10 years of tax money or more to do it. Problem also is that "he finds Jesus" or "feels remorseful", so what? The act was done, the debt must be paid. There is zero recidivism in DP cases. As far as protecting life,you still are in the fact the condemned wont kill again when he was quite likely to do so. And yes, Texas allows you to shoot as he is running away with your property. There are valid reasons for this covered in other threads. Weather is like always, Hot and .........!


Look up Karla Fay Tucker (I think thats right). She hacked people up with an axe but it took so long to get her day The People forgot her deeds and wanted "mercy". What about her victims? Are they back now? Does Obama see them standing before him?