Caught them in the act

So I'm coming out of the gym today, and there is a white guy with a slim jim trying to break into my work van, with another black guy waiting in a black VW Jetta. They saw me right after they got the lock popped open and the white guy got in the car and they drove away. I had my hand on my kershaw while i tried to memorize the plate. The cops said the plate didn't come back to anything but I am pretty sure I had it right. I am so pissed at my state for denying me my right to defend myself via a ccw. What if the two guys decided to come after me instead of running away? I did do my best to identify them.

:what:

Good thing they ran away.

someone once told me that in texas, you can shoot somebody if you suspect they are messing with your vehicle. i wonder if that's true. either way, perhaps you might consider moving to a state that allows carrying. at least you'd be able to defend yourself if the situation had turned out the way you feared...

I am so pissed at my state for denying me my right to defend myself via a ccw

Just curious,which state is that?

Mary-land :banghead:

A vehicle is not worth a life. If you or your family is not in danger let em have it. You should be insured.

Now if you were at home and this was taking place, that is a different story. I have had many conversation with other CCW holders as well as a few officers. There is a difference in defending your property at home such as car prowlers and or home break ins versus a vehicle theft in the city or town. Since there was no immediate threat to you or anyone else and property crime in a public parker area does not have the same weight as it does on your private property. You may have found yourself in more trouble than the criminal.

Unfortunatley in this day and age one must pick his fights carefully.

Sir I was not looking to pick a fight I just wish I would have had a substantial means of defending myself should they have decided to come after me less I identify them. The van is not even mine it's the companies.

biggiesmalls
someone once told me that in texas, you can shoot somebody if you suspect they are messing with your vehicle. i wonder if that's true.

Absolutely.
Deadly force can be used to protect or recover property.

Quick example.
Houston.
A guy looks out his upstairs window and sees a thief trying to steal his new car.
Owner shoots and kills the thief from the upstairs window.
Bad news is the bullet goes through thief and breaks the car side window.
Ruled a "good shooting".


twenty711,
Glad you weren't hurt and sorry that your state politicians value the criminal's life more than yours.:(

Isn't the SOP in Maryland to curl into the fetal position and throw all your valuables at them in this situation? :banghead:
I've caught a perp in the act with my vehicle (sitting in it, going through my stuff). Wasn't carrying 24/7 back then. It's not a comforting feeling.
In the castle doctrine states where it extends to your vehicle, I take it deadly force is only authorized if you are IN your vehicle such as a carjacking?

So having the CCW would have been for peace of mind rather than stopping the crime?

twenty711
Mary-land

OH God!!!

Now I understand. I grew up in Baltimore Maryland (1938-1966).
I could not get away from there soon enough.

Wow, kill a man for stealing your car when you are shooting out a second story window with no danger to yourself. Way too hard core for me.

Twenty. If you want to try to live with killing a man for trying to steal your ride I would not encourage it. It might be harder than you think. There are a lot bigger problems in the world.

That is a good question. I am not sure if I would have tried to stop the crime or not. But it sure would have been nice should 2 guys decide to jump me!

A vehicle is not worth a life. If you or your family is not in danger let em have it. You should be insured.
Insurance will take care of it. Now that's hilarious.

If someone would try to steal my car I wouldn't want to shoot them either but the pistol will certainly present itself. Can't take the risk that they're not armed themselves and I'd want them to comply so that the proper authorities can deal with them. If they run away I'll still have my car.

The thread title led me to believe this was going to be about something completely different!

That is a qeustion we all must ask ourselves. If we are carrying when do you brandish? IMO only when personaly threatened. Property is not worth the consequences. Killing someone has emotional baggage

The thread title led me to believe this was going to be about something completely different!
lol... me too !

That is a qeustion we all must ask ourselves. If we are carrying when do you brandish?
In the OP's scenario I'd say if the guy started toward him it's time to show him the muzzle. The next move is up to the bad guy.

Several people have posted that they do not feel that a CCW should be used to prevent the stealing of a car (I agree 100%). However, the situation that the OP was in is one that I would not want to be with out my CCW. Depending on the type of thugs, catching them in the act can be very dangerous. If the thugs had decided to roll twenty711 instead of just jack his car, he could have been in serrious danger.

Most theives will run when confronted, but not all, especially when they outnumber you. I would never shoot a car-thief, however I shoot someone assaulting me in a hartbeat.


-Titan6 learn to read. Nowhere in twenty711's does he say he wanted to shoot the car thieves.

I am so pissed at my state for denying me my right to defend myself via a ccw.

Vote with your feet.

Here in CA, we are not allowed to use our CCW's to prevent loss of property. Only to stop a life threatening event against our own persons, family or someone in danger.

But to tell you the truth, if in your situation, I'd say screw it, keep the car, I'll get my insurance to get me something new. Now they (the insurance companies) are the real thieves.

"Wow, kill a man for stealing your car when you are shooting out a second story window with no danger to yourself. Way too hard core for me.

Twenty. If you want to try to live with killing a man for trying to steal your ride I would not encourage it. It might be harder than you think. There are a lot bigger problems in the world."

I have to agree here. For me at least. A weapon is to defend myself if I feel in immanent danger of bodily harm. Especially if I am in my house and "protected" (behind locked doors). Taking a life for something material for me is not worth taking a life if it can at all be avoided.

However this does not mean I wont confront said people to deter of stop them from taking what I worked hard for. If the situation then turns to a violent confrontation then I would protect myself if I thought that was the only option. (for example, they came after me with no weapon I would say please I dont want any trouble leave me and my car alone. If they keep advancing I say stop I will defend myself but i do not want a confrontation while I prepare to draw. Keep advancing then I draw and make my intentions known. I see it a reasonable man would not then advance if he knows you are armed and DOES indeed mean to do you serious bodily harm so I may fire then)

Twenty711, you are extremely lucky that those guys were not armed....it is always dangerous to approach a situation like that. If it should ever happen again while you are unarmed, just observe and report...just like the in the movies. Better to not put your self in a situation where you could be injured... get a good description of perps and vehicle and plate #'s, and phone it in.

Now, if you were armed, and say, lived in Texas (as I do), I would have most certainly shot them. The idea is, people WILL LEAVE YOUR %^&$ ALONE if they are afraid of dying over your car. Being able to protect life and property is a right. I would not hesitate to protect my property with the same vigor I would my life.

Would I shoot someone from my apartment balcony if I saw them breaking into my truck in the parking lot? Thats for me to know and.....

I'm quite sure I wouldn't shoot somebody for stealing a vehicle that belongs to my employer. No reason to put my own rear in trouble for somebody else's property.

Sure, I might say "stop," but that's as far as I go (other than trying to get the plates like you did).

More likely, they were trying to steal tools or something else of value on the inside- much easier to fence than a plain white work van. You did exactly what you should have done, no matter the state you live in.

Wow, kill a man for stealing your car when you are shooting out a second story window with no danger to yourself. Way too hard core for me.

It is a good form of deterance. That particular thief will never steal again and it may make other would be thieves think twice about their profession.

If I catch somebody stealing my car, I would do my utter best to have them try and assault me or run me over so I can defend my life. Stealing a car is not worth dying for is what I would tell them as they lie bleeding on the sidewalk.

someone once told me that in texas, you can shoot somebody if you suspect they are messing with your vehicle. i wonder if that's true.

Absolutely.
Deadly force can be used to protect or recover property.

Quick example.
Houston.
A guy looks out his upstairs window and sees a thief trying to steal his new car.
Owner shoots and kills the thief from the upstairs window.
Bad news is the bullet goes through thief and breaks the car side window.
Ruled a "good shooting".


Not absolutely...
There is a big difference is suspecting a person is "messing" with your vehicle and seeing a person trying to steal a car. If the incident is the one I think it is, then it took place in an apartment complex and at night. There are some special considerations for lethal force use with property and night time that don't necessarily apply during the day time.

In Ohio you'd be arrested and charged immediately. You can ONLY use your weapon to defend yourself/others from a lethal confrontation.... not any property. You'd be in jail in an instant and the scumbags family would sue you and your family for everything you own. :mad:

First, after reading the situation, I agree with twenty711, I don't think I would have wanted to deal with the situation without my CCW. There is the possiblity as others have pointed out, that the situation could have turned ugly.

Second, as for the debate about whether protection of property is a resonable act to fire a weapon, I think that is more of a personal decision in regards to states that allow that kind of response. In my opinion, you're not just stealing my car, you're stealing the part of my life that it took to get that car. The hours at the job are something that you can never get back, to me its not just the property, its what I sacrificed to get that property. I'm not saying I would open fire, but I can understand the reasoning of somebody who says they would.

Third,

Now they (the insurance companies) are the real thieves.

I work in the insurance business, and I don't particularly like to be compared to car thieves. If you had a bad experience with a company, then maybe you should get insurance with a better company or better agent (it probably costs more than the bargin companies). Otherwise, pay for everything in cash, and you don't have to carry any insurance (except for minimum state auto liability limits which if you set up your own fund, you are also welcome to self insure that too). Otherwise, realize that the insurance industry allows us to enjoy all the wonderful property loans we as americans take advantage of everyday.

Insurance will take care of it MY BUTT! :cuss:

Based on the age of my car I'd get about $2200 from the insurance company if it was stolen.

Guess what - there's no freaking way that I could replace it with a car as clean, well maintained, runs as well or has the sentimental value for a measly $2200. I'd go from completely out of debt except for a home mortgage back to paying for a car on a monthly basis. Rest assured if it were legal and I caught someone stealing my car the sucker would die unless I missed. But it isn't legal so like everyone else I'd have to just stand there and let the scum of the earth take it. HELL! Might as well just hand 'em the keys and save 'em the trouble of breaking in. Who knows there's a one in a million chance the cops might actually get it back (yeah right - wanna buy some prime land in the everglades - cheap - dry - a paradise).

This ain't Europe where a dollar and a bit of time can move you just about anywhere in any city in a very reasonable amount of time. Here in the USA if you take a man's car you put his ability to earn a living and move about freely in jeopardy. You make it so that in an emergency be it medical or otherwise he cannot move. The theft of one's car in America puts one's very life in jeopardy. Not everyone is rich and can just go out and buy a new car just because.

Don't wanna kill a guy for trying to steal your car - fine. But there's lots of times when stealing a car is a lot more than just stealing a car.

I still say all you guys who want to kill someone over a car are nuts. Flame if you want I care not. I don't care if your state laws allow it or not. I live in Texas. I have had my car stolen before. Would I kill someone over it? Not a chance.

I understand it is real property and all but so what? Last I checked there was no death penalty for auto theft. There are better ways of handling things than killing people. Where is the limit? Would you kill them over your bicycle? Your lawn mower? How about your yard ornament the neihborhood kids ran off with?

These are just things. Yeah they belong to you and if someone steals them they should be punished but summary execution might just be a little severe. I say if you think that way you need some serious help.

Sure he should have had a gun in that situation. Brandishing? Can't make that call from what he wrote but did not seem needed based on outcome. Certainly if they ran the OPs way I would have considered it.

Some of you sound like ready made victims.

If you have a victim mentality I can see why your states
don’t want you to carry a weapon of any kind.


Tinker2

I still say all you guys who want to kill someone over a car are nuts. Flame if you want I care not. I don't care if your state laws allow it or not. I live in Texas. I have had my car stolen before. Would I kill someone over it? Not a chance.

I understand it is real property and all but so what? Last I checked there was no death penalty for auto theft. There are better ways of handling things than killing people. Where is the limit? Would you kill them over your bicycle? Your lawn mower? How about your yard ornament the neihborhood kids ran off with?

These are just things. Yeah they belong to you and if someone steals them they should be punished but summary execution might just be a little severe. I say if you think that way you need some serious help.

Excellent post.

And this is not to mention the fact that the anti-gun folks use this type of talk/behavior against us as illustrative of the need to limit defensive use of force provisions, restrict firearm access etc. They depict us as violent and use these beliefs as evidence.

Twenty711:

That is a good question. I am not sure if I would have tried to stop the crime or not. But it sure would have been nice should 2 guys decide to jump me!

You should telephone 911 if two guys decide to jump you. The police will arrive and straighten out the situation. If you drop your cell phone in the scuffle, borrow one from a passerby. Most people try to be helpful. Nobody except the police needs to carry a handgun in Maryland.

Tinker2:

Some of you sound like ready made victims.

If you have a victim mentality I can see why your states
don’t want you to carry a weapon of any kind.


Tinker2

Good for you. That is the most novel argument I've ever seen for justifying a state's refusal to issue permits and, I think, the very best.

That is the most novel argument I've ever seen for justifying a state's refusal to issue permits

Gun owners advocating killing as an appropriate response to property theft is an extremely effective and compelling tool in the hands of the anti-gun lobby.

Ultimately that type of talk is what is REALLY used as justification for the restriction of CCW permits.

Well, lets stop advocating it. Know the law, know yourself, make up your own mind as to how you'd handle a particular situation, and then do it. But don't steal my car. :p

Bill, with all those Mosins I imagine you drive a Zil!

Well, lets stop advocating it.

+1

I totally understand people's emotions around this issue... but it is important to understand the implications of talking ourselves into a corner with rhetoric. We are trying incredibly hard to convince society that we are responsible and law abiding. Gun owners cannot afford to come off as if they condone violence; particularly not in response to theft, etc. It is damaging to us. Sometimes we need to be heard... but sometimes silence is golden.

If I couldn't have a gun, I'd consider Alaskan Brand;) bearspray.....

:barf: Thats how I feel about this"just let them have the car"

Two years ago punks decided they needed my truck radio more than me. To get in they broke the driver side rear window.To steal a $150.00 radio they broke a $700.00 window. My :barf: insurance doesn't cover glass. Let me say here and now...I will not let anyone take $9.00 from me...I'd have shot him over that $900.00 he cost me.

Next one should hope I don't here...anything. :cuss:

Mark.

:D Zil? Naw....Suburban....

Seriously folks, know your state laws, and know if you yourself could shoot someone in defense of your property. Thats a pretty personal question, and everyone will have a different take, and every situation will be different anyway.

Hardtarget values human life at $900. Anyone want to go higher/ lower?

I have some issues with some things being said.

I understand that shooting someone over theft sounds very bad. A car is not worth a life. However though there has to be a time when it gets rediculous. Is a wallet worth a life? If they are breaking into your house and you walk in on them as they are lifting your big screen TV into a van is it ok? I mean is a TV worth a life?

How far does it go? Is the only thing worth a life another life? Eventually we will be allowing property crime rates to skyrocket because we cannot morally justify shooting someone over a TV.

What about the idea Werewolf touched on? If your only source of private transportation is stolen and now you are forced to rely on public transportation you may be screwed? What if you cant get to work? What about if the insurance company does not give you a reasonable amount for your car based on its age? Or the car is recovered but in an unoperable state? What then? Do you tell your boss that your car was stolen and that you will not have a reliable source of transportation until the insurance pays out?

When the insurance company pays out will they pay for all the items and random junk in the car that is worth money? What about other things that cannot be replaced very easily? All of the hassle associated with car theft is just a huge pain the butt.

And then when get the insurance, assuming that they give you it all, you now have to go and get a new car as well as replace what was taken. You will be out a lot of time and money as well and in the end you will have made no profit but just suffered a huge inconvenience.

I am sorry but at times I think it is justified to protect property. I am not saying that a shopowner should shoot a shoplifter or anything but I think that at times the threat of injury or death can be a huge detterrent.

For all of you who do advocate not shooting I have a question. If you live or live in a 2 story house and someone breaksi nto your house at 2:00 AM, would you investigate and shoot? Lets assume your loved ones are away somewhere and you had to stay home for some reason. Now you also are able to escape through a fireescape or back door would you investigate or would you leave?

Anyone who breaks into my house when they know I am home or should be home will be shot. They are after me.

Now T is that a flat screen plasma or LCD that we should kill over?

Hardtarget values human life at $900. Anyone want to go higher/ lower?

Decent human -- very expensive.
Scum who prey on others - negative value.

It is not practical in most states to shoot people over even grand theft. Ethically, a different matter entirely.

Good thing we have such excellent judges of human character calling the shots on the spot.

Guess this is the split right here. I will have to take the high road elsewhere. Too bad. You can take it from someone who has been there this is bad business.

I do have to say that I am surprised to hear people say these things, if they really mean it. Getting robbed is a huge put-down! Still... even if you do not value that person's life, the courts will make you think again.

Two years ago punks decided they needed my truck radio more than me. To get in they broke the driver side rear window.To steal a $150.00 radio they broke a $700.00 window. My insurance doesn't cover glass. Let me say here and now...I will not let anyone take $9.00 from me...I'd have shot him over that $900.00 he cost me.
Hardtarget, I'm sorry to hear about your loss. ...but for $900?? Even IF the jury thinks killing someone for $900 is acceptible, would you have no remorse as you look into someone's eyes as they bleed and die to save your $900?? How about the boy's mother screaming and crying as she watches her son die?

At the end of 2005, I was the victim of 2 robberies which cost me over $30,000 (not to mention: my car was vandalized, I almost died in a motorcycle crash, and I lost my job = stress). Insurance paid me back exactly $12,000, and that was needed to replace everything (yes, soap, finger-nail clippers, belt, ... you name it). My house was trashed (insurance would not cover the damage there) and in one instance, I knew who stole everything from my house (renters). When I called the police, they told me "just take them to court". "Oh, that's so easy, after I have spent another $1,000 just to track the SOB" (<- lot's of sarcasm there).

I lost sleep for many months as I thought of scenarios to show this guy that I was not someone to F with. I thought about what prison would be like. In all of my worst thoughts, I did not envision killing him. I can't write down what I thought, but I was going through more stress than I had ever seen. Well, I didn't get violent and I didn't lose control.

I guess my point is, I have seen some significant theft (just my opinion), and some real stress. If you put me in the room as he stole the furniture that I made by hand and put a gun in my hand, I don't think I would not pull the trigger. Maybe it's how I was brought up. Maybe I know that I could never live with the guilt of letting my parents down by killing someone over something that I can replace. Maybe I just know that it is very difficult to take bullets back.

Perhaps, in a fine state such as Texas, a reasonable compromise between the "shoot 'em, regardless" and "just let them take the car" positions is to insert oneself into the situation and give them a chance to surrender.

If they do, they are held for police. If they don't, then their actions are taken as continued hostility and they are shot.

But I am philosophically troubled by the whole issue. If we are dealing with a career criminal, I have little reservation against sending them to hell and helping protect society in the process. But what if it's someone who is not wholly rotten and can change their ways? Something like meth addiction can make otherwise redeemable people do desperate things.

Nowhere in the original post, or later posts for that matter, did the OP advocate killing to protect a car. He said he'd rather have options IF THEY HAD DECIDED TO COME AFTER HIM INSTEAD OF TAKING OFF. Read and comprehend before you go off on some nit-witted tangent about how bloodthirsty we all are.

Every time you throw the ball into the court of "the streets will run red with blood if..." you give the other side a terrible impression of gunowners as a group. "They" do frequent these boards and others like it. The Zumbo Incident illustrated that for us. The OP made a legitimate observation, some of you took it as an opportunity to chastize him for something he never even said. Pretty lame, if you ask me.

Gun owners cannot afford to come off as if they condone violence;What nonsense! How can one not condone violence if they own firearms and are anything other than a target shooter only.

It is the epitomy of hypocrisy for anyone that carries a firearm on a regular basis out in to the world to say they don't condone violence for most assuredly they do. If one doesn't condone violence then by definition one must respond passively and without violence to all attacks regardless of the source.

Are we lying, hypocritical politicians now that we would privately condone the use of an extremely violent means of projecting force but in public want everyone to think we'd never use it? :rolleyes:

'You people need to learn how to read.'

--- And a lot of other things as well.

'Nowhere in the original post, or later posts for that matter, did the OP advocate killing to protect a car. He said he'd rather have options IF THEY HAD DECIDED TO COME AFTER HIM INSTEAD OF TAKING OFF. Read and comprehend before you go off on some nit-witted tangent about how bloodthirsty we all are.'

--- Nobody ever said he did. But several other people were advocating trial by 12 Guages of the perp's peers for auto theft. Like I said 'if' the OP is considering this, I would encourage him not to. This is not a tangent. People are suggesting this is a valid response to the situation.

'Every time you throw the ball into the court of "the streets will run red with blood if..." you give the other side a terrible impression of gunowners as a group. "They" do frequent these boards and others like it. The Zumbo Incident illustrated that for us.

--- Fully agree.

I do not know what value system prescibes killing a man or a minor over a car stero or a TV but I had hoped that most people were better than that.

Tecumseh- Where does it stop? Sure someone in your house, sure if they are stealing a gun (which may be in your car). Sure 100 years ago you steal a man's horse you very well might swing for your miseeds. But put it in context; stealing a man's horse was really attempted murder because without a horse a man could easily die. But a car stereo? A TV? Raising insurance rates? These things are morally ambigous even at very best.

The first step towards genocide is to devalue human life. The rest of the steps are not so hard once the first one is made.

If you question that the only time to shoot is in defense of self or others? What about LEOs? Should they go around blasting away at every criminal at every petty crime they see being commited? We may run quickly run out of sane police before we run out of criminals. In any case I don't want to have police on my streets with that ultimate authority making on the spot decisions on petty crime. Yet you want to give yourself this power?

We who must or choose to go armed have a responsibility to use that power with great care. The bullet will not go back into the gun no matter how much you might want it to later. And believe me if you have a concious and kill someone over a car stereo you will want it to undo itself.

All of you super stud vin diesel power rangers types out there mock me from your keyboard and call me a victim if you wish. Again I care not. If you have the courage of your convictions show me where I am wrong.

To me, the laws determining when you can use lethal force do not mandate that you cower from crime. Your duty, IMO, is to fall back and identify them at the very least. Depending on the circumstances, you should confront them. 99% of the time it will play out just like it did here. They don't want a lot of noise or conflict. They want an easy, silent victim that will draw zero attention to them. Deny them that.

At the point where the OP found them, they probably would be convicted of vandalism at the very worst, so there's really no need to eliminate witnesses. Even if a window is broken and they're trying to hotwire it they can still bug out without too much heat.

I just don't like the vibe I'm getting of "since you've got a gun and you can't use it to protect your property, let them have the car." My car isn't worth someone's life, but they're going to have to earn it if they want it. Otherwise, just hand 'em the keys so they don't do as much damage.

Read and comprehend before you go off on some nit-witted tangent about how bloodthirsty we all are.'

Quoted directly from this thread:

If I catch somebody stealing my car, I would do my utter best to have them try and assault me or run me over so I can defend my life. Stealing a car is not worth dying for is what I would tell them as they lie bleeding on the sidewalk.

A guy looks out his upstairs window and sees a thief trying to steal his new car.
Owner shoots and kills the thief from the upstairs window.
Bad news is the bullet goes through thief and breaks the car side window.

This is bad for the image of gun owners. Plain and simple.




What nonsense! How can one not condone violence if they own firearms and are anything other than a target shooter only.

It is the epitomy of hypocrisy for anyone that carries a firearm on a regular basis out in to the world to say they don't condone violence for most assuredly they do. If one doesn't condone violence then by definition one must respond passively and without violence to all attacks regardless of the source.

What are we lying, hypocritical politicians now that we would privately condone the use of an extremely violent means of projecting force but in public want everyone to think we'd never use it?

What is the ostensible purpose of regular citizens carrying a defensive firearm? To thwart violence.

Ergo... we do not condone violence.

We carry firearms as necessary to protect against the commission of violent acts upon our person. We employ violence ONLY to the extent that it is necessary to effect peace. We, as law-abiding, gun-owning, citizens reject violence.

For gun-owners to suggest, publically and repeatedly, that it is appropriate to shoot thieves in a non-violent context, is counterproductive to the maintenance of our 2A rights and the continued issuance of CCW permits, etc.

Think whatever you wish... but when you as a gun-owner talk like this, ultimately YOU become a liability to everyone's gun rights.

Sounds like a good time to have a cel phone with a camera on hand...

There is no need to cower, as Outlaw Man just stated. There is, however, a need to be both judicial in the use of force and understand that it is sometimes needed. If the vandals/thieves had gone after the OP instead of leaving, where would he be without some means to defend himself? Up a creek. Both views of "shoot first" and "never shoot" are without a clear view of reality.

I heard once that violence is seldom the answer. When it is, it's the only answer.

If you think I advocate handing over the keys you are wrong. I do not. But there is plenty of middle ground between that and a ride in the back of the meat wagon.

As the OP pointed out carry is not an option for him anyway. What is an option for him? I heard bear spray and camera phones. I have never used bear spray but have seen some positive results from some other chemical agents. Are these prohibited in Maryland? It has been 25 years since I lived there I am sure the laws have changed.

I'm with Oleg on this one. Its not the money, its the principle. Some human lives aren't worth anything.

Anthony

What nonsense! How can one not condone violence if they own firearms and are anything other than a target shooter only.

It is the epitomy of hypocrisy for anyone that carries a firearm on a regular basis out in to the world to say they don't condone violence for most assuredly they do. If one doesn't condone violence then by definition one must respond passively and without violence to all attacks regardless of the source.

What are we lying, hypocritical politicians now that we would privately condone the use of an extremely violent means of projecting force but in public want everyone to think we'd never use it?

What is the ostensible purpose of regular citizens carrying a defensive firearm? To thwart violence.

Ergo... we do not condone violence.

We carry firearms as necessary to protect against the commission of violent acts upon our person. We employ violence ONLY to the extent that it is necessary to effect peace. We, as law-abiding, gun-owning, citizens reject violence.

For gun-owners to suggest, publically and repeatedly, that it is appropriate to shoot thieves in a non-violent context, is counterproductive to the maintenance of our 2A rights and the continued issuance of CCW permits, etc.

Think whatever you wish... but when you as a gun-owner talk like this, ultimately YOU become a liability to everyone's gun rights.
Spin it anyway you want but if one is willing to use violence to combat violence then one condones violence. It really is that simple. However, violence is not the problem. The problem is to whom and why violence is directed.

Violence in and of itself is not evil. Humans use violence on a regular basis for good (like slaughtering animals to provide food for a hungry humanity; or the armed forces protecting a nation; the police tracking down and capturing a serial killer - list goes on and on). It is the evil intent and bad purpose of those using it that is bad. Kind'a like a gun itself. A gun is not inherently evil; it is a tool that can be used for good or evil. Violence is no different. The sheep will never understand that.

It is sad to learn, though, that some gun owners don't understand that either (or are fooling themselves). It is even sadder to learn that some do understand it but want to spin it in a way that placates the sheep and fools them into believing we are something we are not and believe something we do not. That makes us no better than the two faced politicians we all profess to despise.

Good luck with that, though. The sheep outnumber us 10 to 1.

before the mods from tactical come and lock this just let me say:
"the shoot or don't shoot in protection of property thing gets solved about as well as the .45 vs 9mm, 1911 vs glock and ak47 vs ar debates". each person must decide on what is leagle in their area and acceptable for themselves.:banghead:

You know I was really surprised at Oleg on that one. Surprised and very disappointed. I have not been in this forum long but I expected everyone here to treat people with respect.

The moment you begin to completely dehumanize people and say they are worthless society is going the wrong way. If we look at all the kids who have stolen a car stereo for example and then gone on to do something meanignful with their life they greatly out weigh those who do not. Don't tell me they don't exist because I can personally point to thousands of examples where they do.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....

A vehicle is not worth a life
You know I am sick of this mentality. If it is your property you should have every right to defend it, we aren't talking apples from an apple tree here some kid picks on the way home from school, we are talking an expensive piece of personal property. Frankly when you decide to try and steal something from someone you give up your right to be safe and if that involves being shot? Well hey sorry buddy should be a hazard of your profession.

Nope sorry, my car is worth more then a thieves life. Now is my car worth more then spending the rest of my life in jail? No, so unfortunately the thief goes free and I have to deal with an insurance company that will likely squeeze me for every nickel and dime they can to give me the absolute smallest check possible, and then hope I can find a comparable car at current market prices and not come out with a loss anyway.

Sorry, but some lives are worth more then others.

What is the ostensible purpose of regular citizens carrying a defensive firearm? To thwart violence. Ergo... we do not condone violence.

This is flat out wrong...no offense, CFriesen...and I mean that...but this is a totally false and incorrect statement.

The ostensible purpose of regular citizens carrying a defensive firearm is to thwart criminal and unlawful violence. We do condone violence that is lawful, otherwise, no one would own guns.

Violence: Noun

S: (n) violence, force (an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)) "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"
S: (n) ferocity, fierceness, furiousness, fury, vehemence, violence, wildness (the property of being wild or turbulent) "the storm's violence"
S: (n) violence (a turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc.)

bill larry / werewolf:

*sigh*

Yes, I am aware that violence in and of itself is not evil.

Sure... if we wish to exercise full semantic precision than I will concede that I do indeed condone citizen gun-owners' use of violence in certain contexts:

I condone their use of violence in response to direct threat to the safety of their person or that of others.

I condone their use of violence in response to the killing of animals for sporting or foraging purposes.

I condone their use of violence against insects that cause them discomfort in their home, vegetables that threaten to impair their airway if swallowed whole, wild foliage that threatens to impair their status with the neighbors if left to prosper on the lawn, bacteria that threaten to impede their ability to remain at their workstation without repeated trips to the toilet... I am certain I have missed a few.

Nonetheless... it is irresponsible for gun owners to advocate and condone the use of violence in response to non-violent criminal activity.



This is flat out wrong...no offense, CFriesen...and I mean that...but this is a totally false and incorrect statement.

The ostensible purpose of regular citizens carrying a defensive firearm is to thwart criminal and unlawful violence. We do condone violence that is lawful, otherwise, no one would own guns.

bill larry / werewolf:

*sigh*

Yes, I am aware that violence in and of itself is not evil.

Sure... if we wish to exercise full semantic precision than I will concede that I do indeed condone citizen gun-owners' use of violence in certain contexts:

I condone their use of violence in response to direct threat to the safety of their person or that of others.

I condone their use of violence in response to the killing of animals for sporting or foraging purposes.

I condone their use of violence against insects that cause them discomfort in their home, vegetables that threaten to impair their airway if swallowed whole, wild foliage that threatens to impair their status with the neighbors if left to prosper on the lawn, bacteria that threaten to impede their ability to remain at their workstation without repeated trips to the toilet... I am certin I have missed a few.

Nonetheless... it is irresponsible for gun owners to advocate and condone the use of violence in response to non-violent criminal activity. It damages our image.

Call that placating if you want werewolf, I'm in this to win not to honor myself. Keep it up and you'll soap box us all into Airsoft collections



Spin it anyway you want

Uhhh.. yeahhh.

*I* am spinning it. :rolleyes:

I'm with Oleg on this one,

Decent human -- very expensive.
Scum who prey on others - negative value.

It is not practical in most states to shoot people over even grand theft. Ethically, a different matter entirely.

Ethically, if a man has chosen to attempt to deprive me of my Freedom from fear and Freedom from want, then I will exercise my Freedom to protect all other Freedoms, at the end of a gun if necessary.

On that note, it looks to me like this one has gone as far as it can, all views have been expressed that can be and nothing except bickering is getting accomplished.

I vote now for a close.

and it thwarts it how exactly if you smile reach down by your gun unclip your keys and toss them at the theif?

Being a theif used to be a hazerdous line of work, it should become so agian.

This one has about run its course...

Closed.