27 comments on “Texas Hold Shoot ’em

  1. What’s more troubling to me than the fact that a gun was used in this crime is the mentality that the best way to deal with any problem or conflict is to assault, kill or jail someone. Not only does Texas law encourage people to use deadly force to prevent property crimes of whatever degree (murdering somebody for tearing up your lawn? Seriously?!), Texas has over 2300 felonies on the books. Talk about not valuing human life.

    • I agree. A part of the problem has always been that damn Castle Doctrine, which places a higher premium on property than a person’s life. It’s given most of those gun-toting nuts the ammunition they need (pun intended) to carry out senseless executions and virtually walk away scot free.

      Sometimes, I seriously wish Texas would consider secession.

  2. I can just see Texas changing its state motto: “Shoot first, ask questions later.”

    My prayers go out to the young child’s family. Such a tragic and unnecessary loss of life.

  3. I honestly can’t say that I know much about Texas law…especially the Castle Law. But after I read it, I kept thinking to myself that this could be an obvious get-out-of-jail-free card for any trigger happy Texan to pull. Even unarmed people can be shot dead if property is at risk (even if that risk is only perceived). Remind me not to ever move to Texas.

  4. Ok Texas is a bad example of…well…anything. Everyone knows the Texans are by far the craziest people in America….Sorry but they’re are too many examples to prove otherwise….

    However, I recently read an article in Milve where a young man in Flint was shot in the leg as he was breaking/entering in someone’s crib….while they were home….he later died on the operating table due to complications regarding the anestheia. the family (through comments on the article) blamed the doctors for not doing their job….go figure…

    Anywho, all of this is to say that I believe that if people are allowed to own guns that they should have to take a course in gun ownership..

  5. I feel for the people who got their house broken into and felt that the owner used good judgement by only shooting him in the leg and not shooting to kill. So it may seem extreme but honestly you got people with anger issues and all kinda mental disorders who own guns. Just as police are trained to use their weapons, everyday people should have to take a course or some type of training on it….I mean it may seem extreme but we’re literally talking about life and death…

  6. Classes won’t change the behavior of those who create things such as the aforementioned sign, or do things such as handing off a firearm to another so they too can take pot-shots @ a child. People that do these things are irreformable, IMO. I too blame Texas law for this one. Repo-men in Texas have been routinely shot @ for years whilst recovering property in default, & nothing changes as both sides are technically acting within legal realms. That’s FN CRAZY.

    I’m w/ you Andre, let ’em secede. The land-mass that makes up Texas is a small price to pay to have all the crazies of this country far away from the rest of us.

    -n

  7. Nic: You have to understand people: If these hillbillies wouldve been forced to go to a class and answer questions and take a test….guess what: They wouldn’t have a CCW. I can almost promise it…
    Generally speaking, people don’t really like to work for things…we’d much rather have things given to us. Classes may not change the mindset but it would certainly serve as a filter. Do you know how many people would NOT have guns right now if they even had to take a 2-day class????
    Dick Cheney certainly wouldnt….sorry that was mean and it slipped…

    I believe that people should be able to bear arms….just not everyone. There should be some sort of filter….but that’s just my opinion. Quite honestly, if an armed person was breaking into your house…what would you do? Call the police and hope for the best? We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Texans were completly wrong but there are many more situations were moms and dads protected their families from intruders due to carrying a gun. Or women protected themselves from their abusers….

    • Jos, I actually like the idea of testing, much like how driver’s education includes both written exam and driving tests. But the NRA would never allow this to happen.

      The truth is: gun ownership is not like…say…college admissions where knowledge and appitude are pre-requisities. Besides that, even if a person possessed whatever type of knowledge/acumen they needed to pass a test, they still might not have the ability to calm themselves down if they got trigger happy.

      I don’t pretend to have the answer to this. It’s too hard to come up with a reasonable resolution that is satisfactory for everybody.

      • At least as much training and supervision that goes into obtaining a license to drive should go into obtaining a license to carry a firearm. There will always be unique circumstances to address, and our system of law is flexible enough to accomodate those circumstances, but there should be a minimum threshold that includes safety and marksmanship training and a qualifying exam, along with standard background checks that include mental health screening.

      • Once you enact such measures, the act of owning a gun becomes a privilege, & not a right, much like being able to drive a car. And while I am not @ all turned off to the various ideas of testing described here, @ last check, driving a car wasn’t a right as outlined by the Constitution.

        -n

  8. Hey Dre,

    “I’m trying to defend gun owner rights with ever bit of logic and sense I have. ”

    You call us “gun nuts” all the time. That’s like me trying to say I defend gay people even as I call them Immoral F**S. Your sensible about your approach but your bias shows in how you refer to us.

    This is an example of two bad gun owners, or as you correctly referred to them, IGO’s. Look, every group has it’s bad actors and gun owners are no different. It really bothers me when people (not you) who get soooooooo upset if some one points out one bad acting member of any minority group as proof that they’re all bad people, have no problem using that same stereotyping with Republicans, gun owners, hunters, or any other group they are not in. Come on people, you don’t want to be stereotyped? Stop doing it yourself.

    BTW, they look like such a nice couple.

  9. @Malik,

    “along with standard background checks that include mental health screening.”

    I’ve often wondered if the mental health screening is a really a good idea. Take myself for instance, if I were to suspect I may need mental heath help, but would lose my guns and right to hunt (I’ve actually had this conversation with a person going through some depression) I would most likely try to self diagnose and self medicate rather than lose my rights. Don’t you want people with guns to seek help instead of hiding it?

    • Being diagnosed with a mental illness doesn’t necessarily mean you should lose your right to own a gun, anymore than being diagnosed as an alcoholic necessarily means you should lose your license to drive. It should depend on the severity of your illness, your competence, and your behavior.

      • I agree completely, but that’s a fear gun owners have, that seeking help will lead to not being allowed to have a gun or hunt.

  10. HC,

    If you suspected that you had mental issues then what would be the problem with laying off the gun usage until you were deemed ok?

    Do police officers have to undergo some type of mental anaylsis? If not they should..

    Dre: My point is that in making someone work for a CCW then you’re gonna get a lot of people who simply won’t do it JUST because they have to work for it. Will it change the mindset? Hell naw! (lol) will it change the number of people carrying guns? Yup!

    • Hey Joslyn,
      “If you suspected that you had mental issues then what would be the problem with laying off the gun usage until you were deemed ok?”

      If that were the case then there would be no problem. The problem comes when I get refused a CCW because I was treated for Paranoia 12 years ago. Imagine how the press would react if someone shot up a school and it came out that he was treated for a mental illness before he got his gun. I don’t think the public in general wants anyone who has a history of mental illness having any kind of a gun. That’s the present reality. For that reason some people are not seeking help. I’m just trying to get people to consider the other side. I agree with both you and Malik that once they have their illness under control they should be able to get a gun again but I’m not sure everyone thinks on the same level as you and Malik.

      • I hear you, but I think the risk posed by individuals who are incompetent to safely own and use a gun outweighs the risk that some perfectly competent individuals will lose their right to own a gun because of a history of mental illness. That said, I think any well-designed provision for assessing mental fitness will not only take into account a person’s competence, but will include the right to appeal any adverse decisions. Of course, even the best designed provision may not play out well on the ground. But that’s the nature of lawmaking. You adjust and refine as you go.

        And the reality is, when you’re talking about hunters, you’re talking about country folk for the most part. And I know country folk; legal or not, sane or not, everybody has at least one gun, usually more. Changing gun laws to include some modest qualification requirements won’t change the way country folk live one bit, nor should it. The goal is to filter out individuals who are genuinely incompetent and/or irresponsible. That’s all.

  11. Hello handsome , Good Golly , ya need a warning before those pics pop up , yikes ,
    Then reading what happened , MAKE ME SICK!!!!!!!! I hope they throw the book at them and make an example of the both of them.Stupidity is one thing but there is something more than that here , disregard for human life ,mixed with an over inflated idea of ones rights to protect ones property and sprinkled with total idiocy!

    God Bless
    HUGS
    Greeneyes
    P

  12. @nic:

    There is no such thing as an absolute and unfettered right of any kind. The very concept is self-contradictory. If individuals can exercise their rights at the expense of others, then no one has any rights of any kind. All rights have limitations and conditions, else there would be no social order to give those rights meaning and effect.

  13. @nic:

    P.S. The distinction that you draw between a “privilege” and a right is purely semantic. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement, hence everyone has the right to travel by whatever conveyance they choose, provided they satisfy the requirements for lawfully operating their vehicle of choice and obey the applicable travel regulations.

  14. If the “rights” you all are speaking of allow nutcases like these to kill innocent people, perhaps its time once again to revist these laws. Rights are meant to protect people, not to give them a license to inflict danger on others. We talk about guns falling into the wrong hands…and strictly think of criminals. But these two loons probably would not be categorized in that same bunch and yet were able to shoot with no regard to the consequences. I agree with Joslyn: obtaining a gun should NOT be as easy as it is. Most of the psychotic people who have them won’t be able to if access requirements were tougher.

  15. Andre, like it or not, this is exactly what will happen when any old nutcase can get their hands on a gun. People so quick to defend gun “rights” (good distinction, Malik) haven’t quite wrapped their cold, dead hands around the idea that gun ownership is not and SHOULD NOT be for everybody. The whole ‘Right to bear arms’ mess is outdated, misinterpreted, and exploited by sick people as much as the same right is cautiously followed by responsible people. I certainly don’t think responsible people should be brought to bear because of the stupidity of others in their group…just like I don’t think a person of a certain race should be judged by the behaviors a few people in their group. But I don’t think the so-called “responsible” gun owners are doing enough to combat this problem. It’s one thing for anti-gun people to speak out. It’s another thing for pro-gun people to.

    • Kenya, as long as society continues to manufacture guns and allow people to own them (regardless of their sense and responsibility), count on hearing about senseless tragedies like this time and time again. I’m pretty sure the Founding fathers never intended the Second Amendment to be a blank check to nutcases to use and abuse firearms, especially when they hurt innocent people. Yet that’s what see each time we open the newspaper.

  16. @ Kenya,
    “But I don’t think the so-called “responsible” gun owners are doing enough to combat this problem. ”

    The NRA has certified 75,000 handgun instructors, and gun safety courses all over the nation are on the rise.(http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/04/06/met_517380.shtml)

    The NRA has hundreds of programs across the nation to teach responsible gun ownership. (http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx)

    The Eddie Eagle program is the largest program teaching gun safety to children in the U.S. -run by gun owners and the NRA.
    (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

    Gun Safes, Trigger Guards, and Hunter Safety Programs are all run by, sold by, funded by, and supported by gun owners.

    My question to you would be, “What have anti-gun advocates done except pass laws that only affect legal gun owners?” Why is it that only gun advocates want criminals with illegal guns punished harshly? I would be in favor of a MANDATORY 10 year prison term for possession of an illegal or stolen handgun. (the kind responsible for 78% of all gun crimes). Would you?

  17. The shooting was wrong. OK. That’s been establshed. Not being discussed is the fact that the Muhs are people, if even they look and behave like stereotypical rednecks. How many of you would NOT be upset if somebody pulled up in your neighborhood and started peeing? If you lived in a suburb, you’d be upset that people are defacing property. But even in poor neighborhoods, some residents could see peeing as a sign of disrepect. I’m not justifying the shooting, but if there wasn’t a lack of respect for the people in that neighborhood in the first place, this could have all been avoided.

    FEAST ON THAT!

    • Anonymous, it was only a matter of time that we’d see the loons show up trying to mount a defense for a couple of ignorant hicks. Do you mean to tell me that peeing is an offense worthy of death? The morons has a hand-painted sign warning people they’d get shot. These people were just looking for a reason to shoot somebody. Maybe the victims should have been paying closer attention to the sign posts from the crew from the Texas Shotgun Massacre, but nobody deserved to die because they didn’t. Defend them all you want. But these people were nuts…prime cases on why guns will ALWAYS be a problem in this country.

      Al Qaeda can take the summer off. We have hillbillies around to do their dirty work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s