Handguns

Feel free to post anything unrelated to wet shaving or men's grooming (I.e. cars, watches, pens, leather goods. You know, the finer things of life).
User avatar
AncientOne
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Dark Side of the Moon

Post by AncientOne » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:06 am

ScottS wrote:
AncientOne wrote: No, the property of a neighbor is not covered, I think. The whole justification of the "castle doctrine" self defense laws is that when a person breaks into your home, you have a reasonable presumption that the person is there to do you harm. This doesn't seem to apply here. Here, as a matter of fact, the guy was told by the dispatcher to keep out of it. It would have served him right if he were shot by the police. My wife works for an alarm company, and when they call the police, they're very careful to give complete descriptions of any non-offenders that are on the scene so police have less of a chance of accidentally shooting them. It's a dangerous place to be.

The guy was a cowboy, went out to do something he wasn't trained to do as the pros were on their way, and shot and killed two people, apparently in the back.

I'm not worried that he's covered by the self defense laws, but I'm curious as to how the grand jury finds a way to let this guy go.
You're confusing a specific Texas statute with the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine does not apply in this case. The Castle Doctrine states that you have to retreat no further once in your home...that extends to businesses as well. Meaning you can take a stand in your home. What the case is about, and what I was referring to, is a specific Texas law that says you can defend your property and the property of your neighbor.

The specific Texas law that is at issue is this: "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: when and to the degree HE reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime
OR
to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
AND
HE reasonably believes that: the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; " I am for certain that the Castle Doctrine does NOT apply in this case at all.
Last edited by AncientOne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
James

User avatar
ScottS
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:39 am

Post by ScottS » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:09 am

From the article:
Then there was Mr. Horn’s claim of self-defense under the Legislature’s reformulation of the “castle doctrine” that, as of September, no longer requires a Texan to retreat before using deadly force at his own “habitation” in the face of a perceived lethal threat. Protecting a neighbor’s property, however, is not included.

User avatar
AncientOne
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Dark Side of the Moon

Post by AncientOne » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:12 am

ScottS wrote:From the article:
Then there was Mr. Horn’s claim of self-defense under the Legislature’s reformulation of the “castle doctrine” that, as of September, no longer requires a Texan to retreat before using deadly force at his own “habitation” in the face of a perceived lethal threat. Protecting a neighbor’s property, however, is not included.
He may be trying to claim it, but legally, the Castle Doctrine does NOT apply in this case...it just doesn't. If his attorney tries to claim the Castle Doctrine he will lose this case. But I don't think he will. I think the article you are referring to is just media clap-trap. I saw the man's attorney on television, and even he stated this wasn't a Castle Doctrine case.

So, either your article reporters are wrong, or the man himself is talking out of his ass.
James

User avatar
AncientOne
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Dark Side of the Moon

Post by AncientOne » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:27 am

ScottS wrote:... but I'm curious as to how the grand jury finds a way to let this guy go.
That's why only the federal government and half of the states use a grand jury...it's not a very fair process. The grand jury doesn't have to give a reason for not indicting someone...they are more powerful than the prosecutor on that point. The prosecutor will present his evidence and then the grand jury will go from there. Most of the time the grand jury will go with the recommendation of the prosecutor, but not always.

We'll see...
James

User avatar
Lionhearted
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Lake of the Ozarks

Post by Lionhearted » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:45 am

AncientOne wrote:You also need to recognize that the Constitution should evolve, just as it was intended to. To freeze the document in time is the equivalent of killing it.
"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
—Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court (2004)

Note that I quoted from the two extremes; Justice Frankfurter saying the Constitution means anything, totally flexible, and Justice Scalia saying it means exactly what it meant when it was written, totally inflexible. This is basically the liberal/conservative stance and the Democrat/Republican stance. It all depends on which five old men are making the decisions.
ScottS wrote:It bothers me when people argue on the pro about the Constitutional aspects of handgun ownership as they watch the erosion of other protected rights and the separation of powers. It makes the arguments ring a little hollow.
I haven't seen any erosion of liberties. I've seen the contrary. The United States today is much freer place than it was 50 years ago. Domestic spying and questionable searches today are much less than they were with J. Edgar Hoover under JFK and Johnson. Separation of powers today is much greater than it was when President Jackson said he had his own army and if the Supreme Court wanted to enforce its decisions, let it raise its own army.

Richard

User avatar
ScottS
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:39 am

Post by ScottS » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:08 am

Lionhearted wrote: I haven't seen any erosion of liberties. I've seen the contrary. The United States today is much freer place than it was 50 years ago. Domestic spying and questionable searches today are much less than they were with J. Edgar Hoover under JFK and Johnson. Separation of powers today is much greater than it was when President Jackson said he had his own army and if the Supreme Court wanted to enforce its decisions, let it raise its own army.

Richard
The Patriot Act really does nibble away at the need for warrants for searches, for example, and the scope of domestic spying is still very much unknown, even by Congress (who should be more adamant in their oversight responsibilities and the separation of powers issues). If Congress doesn't know, you certainly don't know.

The US might be a freer place than it was 50 years ago, but it's certainly not a freer place than it was 10 years post Watergate, by which time there were laws in place to stop Nixon-like abuses.

User avatar
AncientOne
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Dark Side of the Moon

Post by AncientOne » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:09 am

Lionhearted wrote:This is basically the liberal/conservative stance and the Democrat/Republican stance. It all depends on which five old men are making the decisions.
That's not true. I am not a Democrat or a Republican, and many people aren't. In addition, there are individuals that are Democrats and Republicans, and they believe differently. Party lines are pure BS. There isn't much to differentiate them, accept for the labels they so eagerly apply to each other. Neither party has an ideology worth subscribing to, and it isn't as two-sided as you claim.
I haven't seen any erosion of liberties.
Then, you sir, are very naive.
The United States today is much freer place than it was 50 years ago. Domestic spying and questionable searches today are much less than they were with J. Edgar Hoover under JFK and Johnson. Separation of powers today is much greater than it was when President Jackson said he had his own army and if the Supreme Court wanted to enforce its decisions, let it raise its own army.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? The United States is nowhere near as free from the erosion of rights as it once was. That's just bad history. The 4th Amendment is practically nonexistent now due to Bush and his cronies. Perhaps you aren't able to follow the progression of these type of measures Bush is pushing historically. It's not about having anything to hide; it's about preserving the integrity of your rights under the 4th Amendment.

You really are naive if you can't see how our rights are falling by the wayside. When do you stand up and say "no, this has gone to far!" At which point will your rights have been eroded enough for you to do that? Never? Then I suggest you live elsewhere. Millions of Americans, including me, have shed their blood for those rights which you are so eager and willing to cast aside, not just for yourself but for everyone.
James

User avatar
Lionhearted
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Lake of the Ozarks

Post by Lionhearted » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:14 pm

AncientOne wrote:Party lines are pure BS. There isn't much to differentiate them, accept for the labels they so eagerly apply to each other. Neither party has an ideology worth subscribing to, and it isn't as two-sided as you claim.
The Party platform statements on gun control are there for anyone to read. I'm not a member of any political party and I haven't voted since 1964.
AncientOne wrote:You really are naive if you can't see how our rights are falling by the wayside. When do you stand up and say "no, this has gone to far!" At which point will your rights have been eroded enough for you to do that? Never? Then I suggest you live elsewhere. Millions of Americans, including me, have shed their blood for those rights which you are so eager and willing to cast aside, not just for yourself but for everyone.
If it were just me I'd be living in Costa Rica or Spain but my wife doesn't want to be that far away from the kids and she's not fluent in Spanish as I am. I'm an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Regular Army. I volunteered when 80% of American troops were draftees. Freedom from the draft didn't exist 50 years ago.

Governments are trivial. I suppose having $30 million gives me more freedoms than the average American but government has never been one of my concerns.

"I would not give half a guinea to live under one form of government other than another. It is of no moment to the happiness of an individual."
—Samuel Johnson

I see that your arguments turned from the general to personal attacks on me, a definite sign of losing the argument.

Richard

User avatar
AncientOne
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Dark Side of the Moon

Post by AncientOne » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:30 pm

Lionhearted wrote:I see that your arguments turned from the general to personal attacks on me, a definite sign of losing the argument.

Richard
First, what argument? I thought we were having a debate. I guess I thought wrong. Either way, I lost nothing; especially not the supposed "argument" with you.

Second, what attack? Observing someone to be naive, and saying so is most certainly not an attack. You are being too sensitive. Sensitive types always seem to look for insults where none are intended. What a waste of effort. If my plain language bothers you, perhaps I should start being vague and dismissive? Would that make it easier?

Third, being that you don't vote, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on in your opinions of what our government should and shouldn't do. I also am not concerned with your personal wealth, nor does it matter to the conversation I was having. What that statement does tell me is that you feel the need to try and brag about yourself in hopes that it gives some credence to your self-proclaimed "freedom" assertion.

I'll bow out now, because you have proven that an intelligent debate is not within your means, and only argument, or the perceived platform of an argument, is all you are willing to participate in.

Go ahead...get the last word...I know you want to.
James

User avatar
rustyblade
Shaving Paparazzo
Posts: 10461
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:27 pm
Location: Ontario

Post by rustyblade » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:47 pm

Let's remain civil folks, these discussions can work if things don't get personal. I would also invite everyone interested to look up the Joe Lerch/John P epic gun control/constitution thread.

Moderators don't enjoy locking these types of threads, but if personal insults start flying it will be locked promptly.
Richard

bleedingface
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: In the Marshmallow Center of Corruption

Post by bleedingface » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:52 pm

Not an op, but I agree; we've had a lot of thread lock lately and this is probably unnecessary among gentlemen.

We all have issues to which we are intractable-- some more than others, maybe. For my part, I just think gun control debates are usually misdirected, and I have a pet peeve about the argument centering around hunting and rural living instead of the true issues of the second amendment.

It is clearly stated in King's English that the right to bear arms is given to the People. The author of the Bill Of Rights wrote extensively on this facet of our civil liberties, and thought it important enough to be the second of ten amendments to the constitution. We had just defeated a global superpower using an embedded, armed, civilian force. There was a strong belief that to maintain security of the nation, this force had to be maintained, both as a defense against foreign invaders, but also against internal tyrannies, be them State or Federal.

The reason the second amendment is prefaced with the clause about a well-regulated militia is that it is a concise statement of principle behind the reason for the right to be granted. I believe this clause was added by Madison to ensure that the second amendment was never misconstrued to be about anything other than ensuring the security of a FREE state.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

But that was the 18th century, and it is true that the USA of today is a horse of a different color...

User avatar
Sam
M'Learned Friend
Posts: 11691
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:13 am
Location: memphis, tennessee
Contact:

Post by Sam » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:27 pm

Richard, thank you for your timely post. It may be that gentlemen need to PM each other if things might be better said between two who are more particularly interested in replying to each other. I have not read this post as handguns are not a particular interest of mine.

Sam

User avatar
NeedleRat
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Molalla, OR

Post by NeedleRat » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:51 am

I used to be a cop years ago. Let me tell you, there is not ONE criminal who does NOT know the sound of a shell being chambered in a pump. And a shotgun is not going to penetrate multiple walls. My Glock and Beretta 9 would do it no problem and keep going. The S&W 357 would do so as well. The Springfield 45 would not travel as far, but what ever it would hit would sure tear it up. If one is going to use bullets they are better off with Glaser's loaded as the penetration is minimal (walls). You need to remember, that if you miss your target, the bullet is not going to stop.

But...I have to agree with most. A weapon in the hands of those not educated AND trained, is a recipe for disaster. Defense classes and more importantly, a solid answer as to why are more of a priority than which weapon to get. Often times they create a false sense of security.

Now with that being said, if it is for protecting the shaving goods...

I think this is what the original topic was about?
I don't have diabetes, I'm insulin challenged.

Joshua7900

Post by Joshua7900 » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:34 pm

I used to be a cop years ago. Let me tell you, there is not ONE criminal who does NOT know the sound of a shell being chambered in a pump. And a shotgun is not going to penetrate multiple walls. My Glock and Beretta 9 would do it no problem and keep going. The S&W 357 would do so as well. The Springfield 45 would not travel as far, but what ever it would hit would sure tear it up. If one is going to use bullets they are better off with Glaser's loaded as the penetration is minimal (walls). You need to remember, that if you miss your target, the bullet is not going to stop.
What do you think about a .38 revolver?

User avatar
NeedleRat
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Molalla, OR

Post by NeedleRat » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:22 pm

Joshua7900 wrote:
I used to be a cop years ago. Let me tell you, there is not ONE criminal who does NOT know the sound of a shell being chambered in a pump. And a shotgun is not going to penetrate multiple walls. My Glock and Beretta 9 would do it no problem and keep going. The S&W 357 would do so as well. The Springfield 45 would not travel as far, but what ever it would hit would sure tear it up. If one is going to use bullets they are better off with Glaser's loaded as the penetration is minimal (walls). You need to remember, that if you miss your target, the bullet is not going to stop.
What do you think about a .38 revolver?
Still going to get penetration but not as much. However, a .357 can fire .38 ammo so it is much cheaper for general range/target shooting.
I don't have diabetes, I'm insulin challenged.

Furrball2
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:48 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

Post by Furrball2 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:40 pm

I have a SMLE No1 MkIII* and a Browning Buck Mark .22LR target pistol. Neither is owned for self defense -- although I do have a box of pre-suaged .22 rounds. It's a frangible ammunition that breaks into three pieces that each tear a .38 inch wound track.

I'll leave the great debates to the great debaters. But people should probably think twice about a knife as a primary weapon. Unless you are trained in Modern Arnis, are former Marine Recon, SEAL, SF, or other member of the Special Ops world; if you pull a knife and the other guy stays around, you should probably run. If you have ever seen people who actually know how to use a knife -- I don't -- then you know that knife fighting is a true art and not for the uninitiated.

Also, leaving loaded weapons around in an unsecured manner is not good. If your kids know the rules great. But what about their friends who find one of these loaded weapons lying around? There are numerous safes that have quick open features on the market. The prevent your kids friends and intruders from finding the guns. But if you need the gun it's there and ready.

For a home defense weapon I would go for a 12 ga with a pistol grip and the shortest barrel I could legally buy, maybe Red Dot sights or something similar. Also a tactical flashlight capable of temporarily blinding any intruder mounted on said shotgun. I also have dreams of a CZ-75B.

my 0.02 cents, dave
Pen: Namiki
Razor: Merkur (Vision 2000) now 38C
Blades: Feather
Brush: Muhle-Pimsel silvertip
SureFire Executive Defender

User avatar
sgtrecon212
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Post by sgtrecon212 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:47 pm

Dave, those would be QuickShok .22 rounds, am I correct? Maybe Velocitors?

I know you mentioned you don't own your guns for defense, so this is just an opinion if the subject comes up.

Be careful with frangible .22 ammo for defense. You need penetration to get the bullet in a sufficient distance to cause the damage you need. If the bullet breaks up before that, you have a very shallow wound channel not reaching anything vital.

I find both rounds I mentioned to be an absolute anchor for groundhogs at anything out to a reasonable .22 hunting distance. Maybe up to 75 yards.

As for the CZ75B... don't dream about one, buy one when you can. Maybe one of the best built handguns around. Very accurate and dependable. I had one and traded it because it was too big for me. I have girlie hands and the double action trigger reach was too long. And...... When you do get one, visit Hakan Pek's website and get some custom grip panels made. He's an absolute artist.
Steve
______
Go Cubbies

Furrball2
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:48 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

Post by Furrball2 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:34 am

They are the Quickshot rounds. I read about them in Combat Handguns many years ago. I saw a box at a store and bought one, more of an impulse buy then anything. They do very amusing things to a half gallon jug of water.

The CZ has been on my wish list for a long time. My wife has a list of things that come before the CZ, alas.

dave
Pen: Namiki
Razor: Merkur (Vision 2000) now 38C
Blades: Feather
Brush: Muhle-Pimsel silvertip
SureFire Executive Defender

User avatar
desmoface
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:49 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by desmoface » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:38 pm

First line of home defense :wink: :
Image
Image
Second line of home defense:
Image
Image

Steve

User avatar
Bowcephalus
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: LakeCormorant, MS

Post by Bowcephalus » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:10 pm

Good choice on the Sig........Ya need to wear a little blue off though! ;)

Post Reply