It does apply to them. If you have no law, then it doesn't apply to them. As for how effective new universal chk with no loopholes laws and licensing will be.... Never tried on a large national scale, so you can't be absolutely sure, but probably will be at least somewhat effective, if not very. Anytime there is a traffic stop, show your gun license - no license -> big trouble. Anytime they try to buy a gun from any dealer (or any person that is selling it legally - need to be law also), fail check --> no gun, sorry. Can’t get gun legally —> they may turn to the black market, at an elevated price for obtaining gun ---> more cost => yield less guns overall in population that shouldn’t have gun.... so on. There are many other gun deaths not done by criminals (much more in fact) -> suicide and accidents. Licensing with the goal of reducing accidents (basic education, lock requirements... whatever policy work) and suicide (mental screening) will help. Set an ambitious goal, and use data and research to drive changes to laws and enforcement of them to achieve that goal. Adjust as needed and hopefully over time guns will flow toward those that are responsible, and away from those that shouldn’t have one. What we can’t do is pretend nothing can be done.
Texas woman shoots suspected robber trying to grab purse: 'I shot until I couldn't shoot anymore' https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-wo...ab-purse-i-shot-until-i-couldnt-shoot-anymore I know most in here would say she should have just surrendered her purse and suffered any other consequences coming her way for simply trying to get home.
I would have driven away... They reached into the drivers side window to grab her purse, that she was able to grab and pull out a gun an shoot them. Something there doesn't make sense.
Nice move Sherlock. I guess she could have fought him off while driving, It doesn’t say how big a girl she was.
I would say she should have surrendered the purse. A purse is not worth taking a life. As was mentioned. she could have driven off, or even tossed the purse out the window to clear space, and then driven off. Back in the good ol' days shooting someone was always a last resort. Now people seem happy when someone gets shot. Some things have changed in ways that aren't an improvement.
Anyones idea to (completely) keep guns out of criminals hands, stop mass shootings, gun confiscation or gun taxes (ie: gun insurance) is fighting a pointless battle and clearly doesnt understand the dynamics of the issue. The first step is to get the epidemic under control. Stop letting the manufactures produce an endless supply of guns. In addition, stop making guns so easily available for purchase. When the nearest place to buy a gun is closer than the grocery store, that is a problem. The supply/demand ratio should be the opposite of what it is now. I dont have a problem with people freely owning single shot/bolt action firearms or shotguns. However when it comes to semi-automatics, regardless of flavor, there absolutely should be some sort of licensing, especially if the person is freely carrying it around.
I think the previous two answers to my question answers your question which states that they would just walk away, drive away let them have whatever they want whether it’s your money your wife your kids instead of defending yourself and yours. It tells you all you need to know, it’s not about gun control it’s about gun abolishment.
Moronic tweet. 1. There is no reason to believe the hypothetical person "can't pass a background check" 2. There is no reason to believe the hypothetical person "likely has abused their spouse or has a violent criminal record" Just because you find yourself in a circumstance where you want to borrow someones gun does =/= you cannot legally acquire a gun yourself I don't own any guns and I don't really care to but this is a logical fail.
I throw the BS flag. crenshaw was making the argument that enhanced background checks would prevent him (or anyone else) from loaning guns to friends when they travel. I don't want people loaning other people guns to defeat the purpose of background checks. Responsible gun owners should understand this. But crenshaw is falsely presenting this as yet another "losing rights" argument.
I think there are numerous problems with your response. 1. You believe driving away or giving them the purse is the same as letting them have whatever they want. Driving off or even giving up the purse rather than using deadly force doesn't mean that law enforcement can't be notified description and location given. 2. a person's life isn't more important than a purse. That goes both ways. The criminal's life is more important. The person who shoots the criminal will never be the same person again. That isn't worth a purse either. 3. There are numerous things that can go wrong when shooting a gun in a public space. Most of those aren't worth a purse either. 4. Giving up or not giving up a purse isn't life-threatening in and of itself. The problem is that folks are celebrating using deadly force when using deadly force wasn't the only option to escape with their life. 5. It isn't about defending anyone. This case was about defending a purse and using deadly force to do that.
You don't really have to fight someone off who is outside the car. Instead she supposedly fought him off for the purse and the gun, which only had 2 shots and would have left her totally defenseless against what was supposedly a hoard of men. Driving off seems like the safest thing. Edit: Watching the video with the original story, the reporter said she shot through the window...
No-one has the right to judge the way someone approaches being attacked. I don't care if the chick used a flame thrower to ward off the attack it's her right do it whatever she can think of in less than 10 seconds or adrenaline pumping fear. Think about that before you monday morning quarterback solutions to a problem that happened in an instant.
Just as I expected you know this has nothing to do with this thread a d you just wanted to trot out the same old gun abolishment argument. Nobody has argued for him abolishment of said this woman should not have been armed. If she drove away she would not have been giving them what they want but let me ask you this what if those guys returned fire how does that scenario go down with you?
Would that not be the case? The Crenshaw tweet made it seem as if you wouldn't be allowed to lend your weapons to folks under new legislation.
Who said she didn't have the right to shoot him? But to pretend your only options are to be robbed & possibly murdered or shoot the person? The weird part is that the attacker reached in, grabbed the purse, but she was able to reach into the same purse, pull out a gun and shoot him. I know my defense would be that I was just trying to talk to her when she got spooked and shot me.
