Homeowner shoots 2 in attempted in Clear Lake robbery

[kw5kw]

They were gunned down shortly after 8 p.m. by a homeowner

Would you say the Chronicle writer was a little biased?

No. Brainwashed.

I have a theory that actually applies to multiple topics.

If the reporter had actually ever faced a robbery, assault etc, it would more than likely not have been labelled "gunned down".

Along the same lines, I believe most anti-death penalty folks would change their mind if one of theirs was murdered.

I entertain the very same line of thought.
It's the old line... walk a mile in that man's shoes and you can feel his pain until then it's just words out of his mouth that they will never understand nor have a feeling for.

Most libs/antigun/anti 2A types really have not a clue. They lead sheltered lives and will never change their way of thinking(!) until faced with a reality much different from the miost recent episode of "Survivor" or "Bachelor" they just watched. Even when reality hits home, some will never see the light. True sheeple are they!

Anygun

To them it's 'crystal clear' that the robber had every right to be in that other person's house, but when it's their house then they will finally obtain the actual feeling of being violated and understand how it feels to be: a) burgularized, b) car stolen, c) robbed at the point of a weapon, d) raped, e) carjacked or f) have a dear loved one killed by such a perp.

Until then they will never understand, and after that they'll be very much on our side.

Russ

[Paladin]

I dug up some more info. This is 3rd hand info, but should be reliable.

There were 4 BG's. They were from Dickinson. Somehow, sometime earlier they had gotten ahold of the homeowner's keys and made a copy. So that when they "broke" into the home, they did so with a key. 2 BG's went in the apartment. 2 BG's stayed outside. They tied up the man inside, and went in another room to find some stuff to steal. The man's wife was hiding and untied the man when the coast was clear. The man got his gun and shot the 2 BG's inside. The one who was shot in the face is really messed up and is not expected to live.

[seamusTX]

So that when they "broke" into the home, they did so with a key.

Just for the record, a charge of burglary does not require forcible entry:

§ 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion
of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a
felony, theft, or an assault;

It's not required that the burglar break in or actually take anything.

I guess in some states, forcible entry is worse than walking in through an open door.

- Jim

[casselthief]

I think he was meaning that they didn't break a window to get in, since they had a key.

[seamusTX]

Right. My point was that there is no concept of "breaking in" in Texas law, AFAIK.

- Jim

[Venus Pax]

kw5kw,
I don't think one needs to be a victim of crime to believe firmly in fighting it.
Many of us here aren't crime victims, nor are we related to them. However, we resent being targeted, and we choose to protect ourselves.

You're right, however, in that the antis will not change their perspective until they have to deal with crime either personally or through a loved one.

[kw5kw]

Ms. Pax;

I believe in detering crime at all times... except for speeding of course!

I've owned at least one gun since 1966 and I have had (or currently own): .22's, .32's, .38/.357's, 9mm's, and .45ACP's. While I've carried many a day (not quite legal before CHL) not one of them has ever been fired in anger or in defense of life, limb or property, but, I'm prepared to if necessary.

I believe that here most of us have not been the victims of a violent crime there are indeed plenty of victims out there and many of them will become pro-gun after becoming a victim. I also believe that most of them are anti's and after someone attempts to do harm to their family or worse they will indeed become as one of us, a baptism by fire so to speak.

There are exceptions to that rule, however, and sad it is that the Brady bunch wishes to do away with guns. It seems to me, that if Mrs. Brady would focus more on the criminal aspect of gun use there would be a much better use of resources.

Russ

[HankB]

They were gunned down shortly after 8 p.m. by a homeowner

Would you say the Chronicle writer was a little biased?

Not just biased, but worse, factually incorrect.

From the story, neither one of the perps was "down" immediately after the shooting, since the police even enlisted a chopper to chase them down. (Maybe the homeowner needs a bigger gun . . . )

[Piney]

They were gunned down shortly after 8 p.m. by a homeowner

Would you say the Chronicle writer was a little biased?

That was the line from the first story that stuck out for me as well.

Perhaps "repelled by a homeonwner...." instead eh ?

[casselthief]

I believe that here most of us have not been the victims of a violent crime there are indeed plenty of victims out there and many of them will become pro-gun after becoming a victim.

I was pro-gun before. I had not taken my CHL (cause it's frickin' expensive!!), but wanted to, at some point. I wanted another gun, but I didn't "need" it.
Then four guys, one of which with a gun, forced themselves upon me, and my friends (one of whom was pregnant). Fortunately I was able to repel (like how I use yer word, piney?) them long enough that they had to take their leave before the po-po showed up.

after being shot at, I have both remained steadfast that guns are good, in the right hands. and that if I had posessed one that night, those four thugs would not terrorize anyone else, ever again.

so, in conclusion, you don't need to be a victim, but it steels your resolve!!
and an anti-gun person could just see that as a reason to not allow guns, because the thug had a gun.
Pacifist people don't typically pick up a weapon, no matter what.
very rarely is one's hard fought standpoint changed.

[lrb111]

after being shot at, I have both remained steadfast that guns are good, in the right hands. and that if I had posessed one that night, those four thugs would not terrorize anyone else, ever again.

so, in conclusion, you don't need to be a victim, but it steels your resolve!!
and an anti-gun person could just see that as a reason to not allow guns, because the thug had a gun.

It has seemed odd to me that even after Ronald Reagan was shot he defended to right to keep and bear arms.
OTOH, After Jim Brady married Sarah, She got the "Brady Bill" passed through Clinton.

Very opposite reactions.

[Alric]

While I've carried many a day (not quite legal before CHL) not one of them has ever been fired in anger or in defense of life, limb or property, but, I'm prepared to if necessary.

Snip snip.

Did you mean to say that you are prepared to fire in anger? While no one here may think twice about that, an anti might assume the wrong things.

[anygunanywhere]

I was reading a Louis L'Amour oater on the flight to/from West Virginia this week and came across a passage in the novel that made my point I stated earlier in this thread:

"Most people have no understanding or expectation of violence. They read of it in newspapers or books but it doesn't touch them. They've no realization of how vicious and murderous some people can be, or what they are prepared to do for money. And it did not have to be a lot of money".

Mr. Passin'

Passin' Through by Louis L'Amour

Anygunanywhere