11-year-old, upset at having to clean room, shoots grandmother before killing self/MOD WARNING

Well yes, it's always a Capital Offense to put another person in fear of their life, and whatever it's being done for is really irrelevant. I believe most people mugged are still killed even when they give there wherewithal over peacefully.and they shouldn't be.

 

I have heard some ridiculous things in my life but that takes the prize. So there are no crimes that are not life-threatening, huh?

"You believe". Yep! Anyone who shoplifts is out to kill!

 

Robbing someone is theft by threat of force. If someone broke into my car and I'm not in it, then I wouldn't use my firearm. I don't know if the badguy robbing me witha gun pointed at me will shoot me regardless of my compliance. I chose robbery for my example because that's the most likely reason someone might threaten me with lethal force.

 

First you say one thing and then you say something else. You are just making it up as you go along.

 

How so? I said that the most likely reason why I may have to use my firearm is being robbed. I also said that I don't know if the person robbing me wouldn't harm me. So how am I saying one thing but in another place saying another?

 

You are only making excuses for the fantasy "murder to rob" scenario. It's basic NRA propaganda to PR the Guns for Everyone sales pitch.

 

Never said that someone who will rob me is also going to murder me. In fact I distinctly said that I don't know the intention of the person robbing me. What I have said, though, is that the robber already exhibited threat of great bodily harm or death if I dont let him rob me. Whether he's robbing me with a gun, knife, club, or his size, the point he's trying to make is if I don't let him rob me, he will harm me.

 

You continue saying the same thing from different angles. You think that you are the judge, the jury, and the executioner ... and that a thief deserves to die at your hand because "maybe" he doesn't only want to rob you but he also "maybe" wants to kill you. Because you "don't know" then you assume it and that's enough for you to kill him. THEFT. Do you know what it is?

"Theft cases in Texas are classified as follows:"

• Theft under $50 Class C Misdemeanor 0-$500 fine
• Theft $50-$500 Class B Misdemeanor 0-$2,000 fine and 0-180 days in jail
• Theft $500-$1500 Class A Misdemeanor 0-$4,000 fine and 0-1 year in jail
• Theft $1,500-$20,000 State Jail Felony 0-$10,000 fine and 180 days-2 years prison
• Theft $20,000-$100,000 3rd Degree Felony 0-$10,000 fine and 2-10 years in prison
• Theft $100,000-$200,000 2nd Degree Felony 0-$10,000 fine and 2-20 years in prison
• Theft over $200,000 1st Degree Felony 0-$10,000 fine and 5-99 years/or life

* The death penalty isn't even on the chart.

 

You seek restrictions that only serve to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their rights.
Why would any rational person agree to said restrictions?

 

Neither of these claims are true.

If someone sought to apply this standard to the exercise of any other right, you'd tell us how unconstitutional is it.

If someone steals your car and runs a bunch of people over, are you legally responsible?

Home liability already covers accidents; no insurance will cover crimes.

 

Define "irresponsible".

For every gun used to commit murder today, 16,000,000 guns were not.
That's your "enormous" problem?

This is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

So?

 

And yet, blacks commit 55% of all murders.

 

He's not just a thief, he's a robber, and if I use my firearm to defend myself, my goal isnt to kill him, it's to stop the threat as quickly as possible. If he runs, so be it. If I shoot a wound him but he stops, so be it. If I shoot and kill him, so be it.

Yes I do, however if he uses force, it's robbery.

Here's what robbery is in Texas.


TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY


CHAPTER 29. ROBBERY

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or

(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:

(A) 65 years of age or older; or

(B) a disabled person.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

This isn't court. Why are bank truck drivers armed by your logic?

 

Correct.
If he wants to steal your TV but pulls a knife and threatens you, the fact he was there to steal your TV is irrelevant.

 

Bullshit.

The latest one was mentally ill. Parkland shooter was mentally ill. Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill. Columbine shooters were mentally ill. Aurora shooter was mentally ill. Gifford's shooter was mentally ill. VA Tech shooter was mentally ill. Most mass shooters have been mentally ill.

See the below chart from Mother Jones. Most of the mass shooters have been mentally ill.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/edit#gid=0

 

Roughly 6 million deer were killed by hunters in the U.S. in 2017. That's roughly 200 times the number of people killed by guns (all reasons including suicide). Guns are used to provide food. Each deer is at least 50 lbs of usable meat (more up north)

https://business.realtree.com/business-blog/america’s-deer-harvest-numbers

 

There are time it's ok to shoot men or women. There are times when this is the best possible action. If those men or women are in the process of committing a violent felony against somebody else, there is justification to do so. That's why guns are allowed--for defense of self, family, and community.

 

Well, the Orlando shooter was Middle Eastern. The VA Tech shooter (the mass shooter who had the highest casualties) was Korean.

 

And since most crimes are intraracial, most black men who are shot are shot by other black men.

 

Robbery is theft using violence. There is a difference between robbery and simple theft. At least in the state of Florida, robbery is a forcible felony, and deadly force is allowed for self-defense against it. Simple theft is not a violent crime, and deadly force is not allowed in defense against theft. There is a difference between the two crimes. I notice that you are using them interchangeably. Either you are ignorant of the difference or you are obfuscating the truth. Which is it? Ignorance or trying to fool somebody?

 

It's valid in the state of Florida. Robbery is the threat of violence to steal. What do you think happens if you don't give the robber the money? That they just let you go? No, they will harm you. That's what robbery is. Liberals tend to not understand differences in terminology, and twist things. Robbery is a violent crime, and thus you are allowed to use violence to protect against it.

 

Mass shootings consist of 4 killings. Most are NOT mentally ill

 

Utterly silly stuff. Such conjecture! Your whole argument is based on "What if!"
Yeah golly! What if a hungry lion escapes from the zoo in Louisiana and ends up on a truck bound for Washington State and there you are shopping in KMart when the beast rushes in to devour the first person he sees?! Holy molly!

 

From the NIH.gov

From elsewhere in the study it found that for every use of a gun in self defense the gun owner's gun was used by the intruder twice.

Uh, anybody recall anyone ever outside of Idaho complaining about taking classes and a test prior to obtaining a drivers license, let alone call it unconstitutional?

You CAN be held liable for damages especially if you can't account for all the keys (negligence) or you haven't filed a police report. . From ALLSTATE

Of course it does. If you get shot or your house damaged by gunfire (crime or accident) your insurance will pay. If not you have some shitty insurance.

All your arguments are predicated on believing something to be true when it is not.