TexasCHLforum.com

WTR wrote:I will never take a life over material possessions ( besides, I'm insured out the ying yang). Now threaten my family, all bets are off.

I hope and pray that I never have to make that decision. I have been the victim of theft, I lost my grandfather's 16 gauge Ithaca pump shotgun and several other irreplaceable things, several years ago, and had no renters insurance. ( was in my 20's and could barely afford rent) Since then I have better security, and insurance, but I still know what everything cost. I detest a thief. I will give someone the shirt off my back if they are in need, but don't try to steal from me. I don't know if I could drop the hammer on someone trying to break into my vehicle, but I will confront them armed and ready. If they come into my home, I have no idea what their intentions are, and I won't waste a lot of time, in a discussion over it. JMHO

bblhd672 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Ft. Worth Star Telegram Editorial Board says in opinion piece: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ed ... 22579.html

The neighbor in this case apparently had every “right” under the law to kill. But killing in the defense of property can never be right.
Shooting someone can only be right when it is to protect a person.

Liberals hardly ever can be on the side of law abiding citizens.

Here's how I think about it.

Is a car (or it's contents) worth a human life? Well I know it's not worth my life, or the lives of my loved ones, because I know the value of those lives. I would think that it's also not worth the life of a random person who I find in my driveway in the middle of the night.

But here's the thing. That random person believes their life is not worth more than my car, since they decided that is a potential trade off they are willing to make the moment they decided to steal my car. And who am I to think that I know the value of their life better then they do? If they really value their life that low, then I'm not going to waste time arguing with them about it.

The Star Telegraph said "killing in the defense of property can never be right" - did not say car/truck/van, they said "property." They think anything you own is not worth using deadly force to protect. They believe anything a store/business owns is not worth using deadly force to protect. They are idiots disguised as journalists.

That's because they have never been victimized by theft, and they believe that the garbage walking around trying to take what we work for, are justified because they are "victims" of society. They have no concept of right and wrong, they only see a death. While I agree the death could have been prevented, the prevention should have come from the 17 year old not becoming a thief. The Socialist left believe that if they want something you have, they are justified in taking it. Hopefully, someone else will change their mindset and not be the next one shot stealing something.

stroo wrote:The point of rock salt was never to penetrate. It was intended to hurt like ever. It wasn't a "self defence" load. It was a drive off nuisance load. It looks to me like it work for that. On the other hand, I don't think I will ever load it in one of my shotguns. I prefer a self defence load.

BTW, we used to use relatively weak BB guns to drive off stray dogs when I was growing up. They didn't appear to penetrate the dogs' skin but the dogs would run off whimpering with tails between their legs.

I too had heard about rock salt being used, from the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, but I have never met anyone who could show me any scars, or even first hand accounts of its effectiveness. There have been several accounts related by friends or relatives, who swore it happened. There are also several television and movie references to its use.(Beverley Hillbillys comes to mind) But, the ballistic effectiveness, at more than 10 feet, is more than suspect. I have heard stories of rock salt "puttin' a hurtin'" on someone across a watermelon patch, but if you think about the cost of loading shells with rock salt, and the damage to the interior of barrels of the only gun on the farm, why not just shoot bird shot?
I'm sure if the county sheriff came around to ask if they were intending to kill the melon thief, he could say "Nah I used rock salt to burn em'" JMHO

Rock salt loses velocity very quickly, you almost have to be at spitting distance to do any damage.

The Wall wrote:Isn't trespassing a crime anymore? You're on my property at night, uninvited and breaking into my car wouldn't be a good idea. Think I would have set off my security alarm and then showed him the dangerous end of my 12 gauge. Would depend on circumstances whether I would have shot him or not. Does anyone use rock salt loads anymore? I accidentally set off my alarm one without knowing it and walked across the street to talk to my neighbor. I watched a cop arrive about 3 minutes later. The second one arrived about 30 second after that. Sure glad I payed my false alarm payment to the city.

I think using rock salt in a shotgun is a myth. You would do as much by firing a starter gun. Check out some testing:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-t ... a-shotgun/

Also, it is heck on shotgun barrels, and if you need a defense load, you won't have it available. JMHO

Lambda Force wrote:"It's 3am. Do you know where your children are?"

This!!

I read in the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, that a neighbor saw the commotion, and was concerned that it may have been her son.

While that is a terrifying thought, how could she not know where her teenage son was at 3 a.m.?

I'm sure there will be "community" outrage, and, while I mourn the death of anyone, at 17 he should have been taught, that stealing, or destroying other's property is a losing proposition. People have the right to protect what they work for, and if he hadn't learned that by 17, perhaps his passing will teach others who are no more knowledgeable. JMHO