TexasCHLforum.com

Because gun control advocates want you to fear the consequences of a deadly encounter. It seems to be working, at least with some people.

SYG is being attacked because it discourages thuggery, a favored tactic of the left.

SYG is bad for violent criminals. I invite people to draw their own conclusions why there's significant overlap between the groups opposing SYG laws nationally and those blocking campus carry legislation in Texas.

All of you are correct; its all pieces of the same picture puzzle. The completed picture looks a lot like the old Soviet Union. We must try to keep them from putting the pieces together.

And it's hard to defend SYG against an emotional attack. When someone moans about SYG giving people the right to kill children, stating that I want to bew able to defend myself with deadly force against deadly force, elicits the response "But he's (sic) just a child."

No amount of pointing out that the whole point of SYG is to enable those of us weaker, due to age, gender, or just flat size, to be able to defend ourselves would move her off that "He's just a child."

The Annoyed Man wrote:SYG is being attacked because it discourages thuggery, a favored tactic of the left.

Exactly.

If they have their way, we will all have to run out of our own houses screaming like little girls when confronted by home invaders....that still might not be enough.

gthaustex wrote:If they have their way, we will all have to run out of our own houses screaming like little girls when confronted by home invaders....that still might not be enough.

used to be like that here in texas, may be again soon.

I did hear something about OSHA making a ruling against it though as it creates an unsafe work environment

jimlongley wrote:And it's hard to defend SYG against an emotional attack. When someone moans about SYG giving people the right to kill children, stating that I want to bew able to defend myself with deadly force against deadly force, elicits the response "But he's (sic) just a child."

No amount of pointing out that the whole point of SYG is to enable those of us weaker, due to age, gender, or just flat size, to be able to defend ourselves would move her off that "He's just a child."

The implication being of course, if the child is using deadly force, you should let him and run away, and if you cannot outrun that 17 year old football playing child, you should let him kill you. He's only a child!

Required retreat is no more unreasonable and no less common sense than universal background checks. <sarcasm off>

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jimlongley wrote:And it's hard to defend SYG against an emotional attack. When someone moans about SYG giving people the right to kill children, stating that I want to bew able to defend myself with deadly force against deadly force, elicits the response "But he's (sic) just a child."

No amount of pointing out that the whole point of SYG is to enable those of us weaker, due to age, gender, or just flat size, to be able to defend ourselves would move her off that "He's just a child."

The implication being of course, if the child is using deadly force, you should let him and run away, and if you cannot outrun that 17 year old football playing child, you should let him kill you. He's only a child!

Agreed, and her response was "But he's a child." And when I tried to logically point out the inconsistencies involved in calling a 17 year old thug with a history of drugs and such, she stayed locked onto the child thing and declaimed that her 33 year old son was HER child, and so on. When I pointed out that GZ is younger than that and also someone else's "child" she veered onto a tangent involving old enough to know better and the differences between the aggressor and the innocent child who was murdered.

She also has just recently, with a little training and coaching from myself and my wife, gotten a CHL (I don't know if TX or not, she and her husband (who disagrees with her on GZ/TM) were all excited about getting a TX CHL until someone else (a friend and co worker who wears a CHI (Concealed Handgun Instructor hat and claims mystical powers due to his elevated status)) told them they could get a FL one by mail order without all the complication of getting a TX CHL. When I tried to ask why she has a CHL she started to try to draw a line between TM and the obvious criminals of the world.

Reason will never defeat irrational emotion.

The new age for children is 26, so a 17 year old is just toddler...

Look at it like this TM was "Just a child" he was 17 and not well matured, unfortunately all that is in a healthy young adult body, sadly a bad combination.

But he is just a child....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjseiw ... urder_news

It amazes me how "child" takes on a different perspective.

- 18 year olds are children who cannot drink alcohol or buy guns for themselves
- 26 year olds are children who have to be kept on their parents medical insurance
- 18 year olds were adults who were drafted and forced to fight in Viet Nam.

I have the same experience as others - you can never win an emotionally based discussion. "If just one person is saved" is used but if you start asking about 1 person being saved from gang violence in Chicago, the subject matter shifts quickly. Emotional arguments are always conflicted, usually with the facts.

If you want to see what happens when SYG and guns/gun rights are taken away, do a little Googleing on what has been happening in Canada and England. Criminals almost have more rights to enter your home and take your possessions than the homeowner has to protect them. If we (gun owners and lovers of freedom and the Constitution) don't push back against the gun grabbers, we'll be next.