Child Kills Burglar with Mom's Gun! Bravo!

Driving cars is not a right. Keep trying.

 

Depends on how you define right. But I simply agreed with your analogy. If you don't feel cars are an apt analogy, why bring them up?

 

Stop hiding behind the children. I know a grabboid when I hear one. You'd be singing a similar tune if he were an adult.

 

You have to put yourself in his shoes. If you see two strangers approaching, you may not think about running. Some people think about defending their homestead first. Plus we don't know the layout of the house, or the track of the criminals. Could they enter on one side and give you enough time to run out of the other side? In my house, if you open the front door, you see my back door because I have an open floor plan in the middle of my house and the living room, dining room, and kitchen all connect in a big 35' x 35' area.

 

The definition is in the 27 words of the 2A. Read it.

 

I have. Have you? What's your point? Again, if you don't feel cars are an apt analogy, why bring them up?

 

Both can be dangerous if you let them.

 

For sure. Which is exactly why we should regulate them, allow lawsuits to make them safer, register them, and require licensing to use them. Just like we do for cars.

 

Don't work that way for a right. How about we regulate and register computers? Pens, pencils, typewriters?

 

Have you ever heard of "fight or flight?" Different people respond differently to the hormones their bodies are producing in this situation. In this case, the boy's body told him to fight. I would hope my sons in a similar situation would run away, but I really don't think my sons would. They have the defender instinct over the fleeing instinct.

 

Looking at the police force wouldn't have saved the kid's life if he hadn't had a gun.

 

I have no problem with that. Cars are only required to be registered and licensed if used outside of the owner's property. There is no restriction on the type of car you can own on your own property or use on other's property. I'm allowed to let my 13 year old niece drive my car on my property without restriction. There is no requirement (if I own my car free and clear) to have insurance to use it on my own property.

So, if we treat guns like cars, as long as I don't use my gun outside of my own property (or that of people who give me permission to use my gun on their property), I would be allowed to own a machine gun, a silencer, a sawed-off shotgun, an RPG, etc. Yes, they wouldn't be "street legal", but using the car analogy, as long as I don't use them on the street (aka public property), they are perfectly legal.

 

I'll pass on yet another debate on the meaning of the 2A and will refer to my posts in other threads if you're interested.

Suffice to say here, as you point out, guns are dangerous like cars, and for that reason, like we do with dangerous cars, they should be regulated, allow lawsuits to make them safer, registered them, and require training, license and insurance for use.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree with them.

 

You don't know that.
Do you have proof they wouldn't have shot him if they saw him running?
Otherwise... your claims are baseless.


We already know you would fall and take the fetal position.
Others aren't so weak.

Stop speaking for others.





Kid did right thing... liberals tell him how wrong he was.

If I had a dime.....

 

I think the only reason any of that came to be was because licenses could be a way for state and local government to create revenue.

 

Not opinion, facts. There is no requirement to license, insure, register, etc. a car that is only to be used on private property. It's just basic law. Love how anti-gunners don't like it when people agree with them. I would love it if guns were treated by the law like cars. (It would also make concealed carry permits usable nationwide).

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, it's to pay for the roads. New guns (and ammunition and bows and fishing equipment) are already taxed by the federal government to create revenue.

 

But to that side of the aisle, the idea of "Rights" is fluid.

 

If it was me in his shoes, I would put up a fight as they are intruding into my life. But I would not want my children to do it.

This shows front side of the house:
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151111/PC16/151119880#

" Deputies from the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office said the boy was alone when a car pulled up behind his house shortly before 2 p.m. Tuesday. The boy looked through a back window in the brick house and saw a man with a gun,"


The boy shot through the door, so they would not have seen him leaving the house. It can be seen that the exit out of the front door goes away from the driveway.

- - - Updated - - -

So you would call a child a coward for not defending your possessions. Amazing!

 

I'll have to disagree. Licenses require at least a minimal proof of training and competency and can be taken away for misuse.

 

True, but I would do my best to ingrain it into them and hope that they try and get away rather than have a gun fight. It's only by luck that he hit him as he fired through the door and he was lucky that he was not shot.

 

I didn't say anything about what there was. I pointed out, using *your* analogy that cars are dangerous like guns, how we regulate them, allow lawsuits to make them safer, register them, and require licensing, training and insurance to use them, because they are dangerous.

Thus, *using* your analogy, we should do the same for guns.

That's what tolls and gas tax is for. I'm not aware of any state that uses driver's license revenues to pay for roads, maybe you can cite some statistics about your claim.

 

Not really. The kid had the tactical advantage--waiting for the man to come through the door. If he was a decent aim (which he obviously was), there was little luck involved. IMHO, the burglar thought somebody was in the house, he just didn't think that someone with a gun was in the house.

- - - Updated - - -

Money is fungible. The license fees go to the general fund, and at least in my state, some of the general fund pays for the roads.

Basically speaking, you don't like the car analogy anymore, because I showed you how inapplicable it is.

For some info about car registration fees:
Colorado:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/do-you-know-where-your-car-registration-money-goes-

 

Somewhere I read that the burglar did not actually get into the house but he was shot through the door. So it was purely luck that the boy shot him if that was the case. Don't a high proportion of house owners in South Carolina have guns in their houses?

 

Quote Originally Posted by TrackerSam View Post
ME
I think the only reason any of that came to be was because licenses could be a way for state and local government to create revenue.
YOU
I'll have to disagree. Licenses require at least a minimal proof of training and competency and can be taken away for misuse.

How is that relevant to what I said about the original reason for licensing - to generate state and local income in the form of a tax or fee. In fact most of the money for licenses, license plates and window decals is collected by the state's Department of Revenue and not the DMV.

 

Again, feel free to back up your claim if you want me to credit it it. If indeed the money goes into a general fund it is not used to pay for roads as you first claimed.

I doubt that many if any states see revenues exceeding costs of driver's licensing in any meaningful way, but again, if you have any evidence to support your shifting claims, feel free to share it.

Why on earth would you say that? I'm fine with it. You're the one trying to back off your own analogy and argue that guns are somehow different because of the 2d. That may give them some Constitutional imprimatur, but that doesn't change their nature of being dangerous and capable of causing great damage, like cars, and so arguably, like cars, we should regulate them, allow lawsuits to make them safer, register them, and require licensing, training and insurance to use them.