Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

You'll be waiting a long time I think - considering that you mischaracterised a difference of opinion as a rant. You did that in the thread about the "unbiased BBC" also.

All I know is that the UK which has strict controls on firearms has nothing like the level of criminal activity that you find across the united states - which has variously liberal gun-laws and capital punishment.

let's review

I'm for increasing certain legal controls on firearms (concealed carry permits). In UK we had some fairly stringent laws on the ownership and availability of firearms BEFORE the 1995 Dunblane massacre. That was only allowed to happen once, in the US its happened at least half a dozen times in the last 7 years, let alone the last 12. That said, I'm willing to admit there's probably more to that phenomenon than the availability of firearms, but clearly it plays a part.

so what you are telling me and everyone else in here? that there is a dunblane style massacre that occured in the states committed by a cch holder? if not, then why was such even mentioned? what, pray tell, is it that buttresses your arguement about that part i bolded then?

Really. One liberal poster says we shouldn't believe our wife if she says she has/is being raped. I'll believe my wife every time. In fact, I'll help any woman screaming rape.

Sure - but would you believe your wife if she had a history of affairs...?

that was not mentioned in the story and is supposition on your part.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Slim, you're arguing with people that believe there is never an opportunity to justifiably use a gun under any circumstance.

Someone comes home to find their entire family being raped.... you:

a. shoot them

b. call 911

c. assume it's consensual, apologize and leave

d. give them a time-out

or...

If the guy is fleeing the scene, you'd immediately come to the aid of your wife first. That would have been my first reaction. Then, after I noticed she had no visible physical trauma, I'd write the guy's license number down and call the police. Call that being a pansy...I call it using common sense. And the end result (if I were the husband in this particular case) ? I would not have to spend a single day in jail for my wife's lie.

you'd spend a long time on the couch though if you were wrong

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You'll be waiting a long time I think - considering that you mischaracterised a difference of opinion as a rant. You did that in the thread about the "unbiased BBC" also.

All I know is that the UK which has strict controls on firearms has nothing like the level of criminal activity that you find across the united states - which has variously liberal gun-laws and capital punishment.

let's review

I'm for increasing certain legal controls on firearms (concealed carry permits). In UK we had some fairly stringent laws on the ownership and availability of firearms BEFORE the 1995 Dunblane massacre. That was only allowed to happen once, in the US its happened at least half a dozen times in the last 7 years, let alone the last 12. That said, I'm willing to admit there's probably more to that phenomenon than the availability of firearms, but clearly it plays a part.

so what you are telling me and everyone else in here? that there is a dunblane style massacre that occured in the states committed by a cch holder? if not, then why was such even mentioned? what, pray tell, is it that buttresses your arguement about that part i bolded then?

I mentioned it because several of those incidents have taken place in the US over recent years (didn't the phrase "going postal" originate in, and specifically relate to the US?). I never said that a CCH holder perpetrated those crimes (or was more likely to), but I don't think its inaccurate to say that those and other crimes are committed with a broad mixture of legally and illegally held firearms.

I personally believe that the broad availability of firearms and the ability for private citizens to own and use them is ultimately detrimental to society - but that's just my opinion.

Edited April 12, 2007 by erekose

[Peikko 1,575]

you'd spend a long time on the couch though if you were wrong

How so? Your assumption is now that the police are useless which is the justification for shooting. I wouldn't like to be the one who had to rely on that as my defence. Edited April 12, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

that was not mentioned in the story and is supposition on your part.

Yes it is - but as we don't know the full facts and aren't privy to the police report and witness testimony many of the arguments in this thread are based in supposition.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

You'll be waiting a long time I think - considering that you mischaracterised a difference of opinion as a rant. You did that in the thread about the "unbiased BBC" also.

All I know is that the UK which has strict controls on firearms has nothing like the level of criminal activity that you find across the united states - which has variously liberal gun-laws and capital punishment.

let's review

I'm for increasing certain legal controls on firearms (concealed carry permits). In UK we had some fairly stringent laws on the ownership and availability of firearms BEFORE the 1995 Dunblane massacre. That was only allowed to happen once, in the US its happened at least half a dozen times in the last 7 years, let alone the last 12. That said, I'm willing to admit there's probably more to that phenomenon than the availability of firearms, but clearly it plays a part.

so what you are telling me and everyone else in here? that there is a dunblane style massacre that occured in the states committed by a cch holder? if not, then why was such even mentioned? what, pray tell, is it that buttresses your arguement about that part i bolded then?

I mentioned it because several of those incidents have taken place in the US over recent years (didn't the phrase "going postal" originate in, and specifically relate to the US?). I never said that a CCH holder perpetrated those crimes (or was more likely to), but I don't think its inaccurate to say that those and other crimes are committed with a broad mixture of legally and illegally held firearms.

I personally believe that the broad availability of firearms and the ability for private citizens to own and use them is ultimately detrimental to society - but that's just my opinion.

yet your statement followed right after, like it was an attempt to bolster your claim. if unrelated, why bother mentioning it? yet the original question still stands - what is it about cch that you dislike and can you point to any event where a cch used their firearm to commit a crime? note that there is a difference between someone owning firearms and someone who is a cch holder.

you'd spend a long time on the couch though if you were wrong

How so? Your assumption is now that the police are useless which is the justification for shooting. I wouldn't like to be the one who had to rely on that as my defence.

how so? just what is the percentage of killers or rapists caught to the percentage of crimes?

that was not mentioned in the story and is supposition on your part.

Yes it is - but as we don't know the full facts and aren't privy to the police report and witness testimony many of the arguments in this thread are based in supposition.

especially the comments on your part about cch holders.

[Peikko 1,575]

How so is, that claiming you shot and killed an alleged rapist because you thought the chances of them getting caught were slim' is not a legitimate defence in any state so not only does the wife suffer from the rape but from losing a husband to the prison system as well.

Quoting statistics on crimes isn't going to make it any more legal a defence either.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

How so is, that claiming you shot and killed an alleged rapist because you thought the chances of them getting caught were slim' is not a legitimate defence in any state so not only does the wife suffer from the rape but from losing a husband to the prison system as well.

Quoting statistics on crimes isn't going to make it any more legal a defence either.

you continue to believe in 911, i'll continue to believe in smith and wesson

and btw, i never said i thought the chances of them getting caught was a justification for shooting anyone, i just commented that believing the police will catch the perpetrator is slim.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yet your statement followed right after, like it was an attempt to bolster your claim. if unrelated, why bother mentioning it? yet the original question still stands - what is it about cch that you dislike and can you point to any event where a cch used their firearm to commit a crime? note that there is a difference between someone owning firearms and someone who is a cch holder.

I'm pretty sure all I said was that I disagreed with the idea of Concealed Carry permits.

especially the comments on your part about cch holders.

Which comments are you referring to?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

yet your statement followed right after, like it was an attempt to bolster your claim. if unrelated, why bother mentioning it? yet the original question still stands - what is it about cch that you dislike and can you point to any event where a cch used their firearm to commit a crime? note that there is a difference between someone owning firearms and someone who is a cch holder.

I'm pretty sure all I said was that I disagreed with the idea of Concealed Carry permits.

and i'm pretty sure i've asked numerous times why.

especially the comments on your part about cch holders.

Which comments are you referring to?

"I'm for increasing certain legal controls on firearms (concealed carry permits)." how much more control do you want, given the list i posted previously of what a cch holder must do? and then there was having the dunblane massacre following your statement about cch, thus making it sound like one is linked to the other.

[Peikko 1,575]

you continue to believe in 911, i'll continue to believe in smith and wesson

and btw, i never said i thought the chances of them getting caught was a justification for shooting anyone, i just commented that believing the police will catch the perpetrator is slim.

No, you didn't just say that, what you said was that someone who relies on the judicial system, rather than taking the law into their own hands, was likely to spend years in therapy for making a bad judgement call. I was trying to get you to realise, somewhat futile of course, that a worse judgement call would be to shoot because you don't think the perpetrator will be caught.

Still, when I move to one of the pioneer states, maybe I will take up the gun over the law, who knows eh?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

you continue to believe in 911, i'll continue to believe in smith and wesson

and btw, i never said i thought the chances of them getting caught was a justification for shooting anyone, i just commented that believing the police will catch the perpetrator is slim.

No, you didn't just say that, what you said was that someone who relies on the judicial system, rather than taking the law into their own hands, was likely to spend years in therapy for making a bad judgement call. I was trying to get you to realise, somewhat futile of course, that a worse judgement call would be to shoot because you don't think the perpetrator will be caught.

Still, when I move to one of the pioneer states, maybe I will take up the gun over the law, who knows eh?

and yet, you still missed the boat........

spelled out, my comment meant this - if a man chooses to disbelieve his wife when she claims to have been raped, does nothing more than caspar milquetoast would do to catch the perpetrator (write down the license plate indeed....and if the vehicle was stolen, it's a dead end) then he'd better be ready to spend a long time sleeping on the couch instead of sleeping in the bed. apparently such flew by you the first time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yet your statement followed right after, like it was an attempt to bolster your claim. if unrelated, why bother mentioning it? yet the original question still stands - what is it about cch that you dislike and can you point to any event where a cch used their firearm to commit a crime? note that there is a difference between someone owning firearms and someone who is a cch holder.

I'm pretty sure all I said was that I disagreed with the idea of Concealed Carry permits.

and i'm pretty sure i've asked numerous times why.

especially the comments on your part about cch holders.

Which comments are you referring to?

"I'm for increasing certain legal controls on firearms (concealed carry permits)." how much more control do you want, given the list i posted previously of what a cch holder must do? and then there was having the dunblane massacre following your statement about cch, thus making it sound like one is linked to the other.

Why because I personally don't like the idea of people going about carrying guns on their person (nor do I see the need or justification for it). If nothing else it would tend to make me think twice before honking at someone at the lights, or knocking on someone's door after dark. Do I have to justify it?

[Peikko 1,575]

and yet, you still missed the boat........

spelled out, my comment meant this - if a man chooses to disbelieve his wife when she claims to have been raped, does nothing more than caspar milquetoast would do to catch the perpetrator (write down the license plate indeed....and if the vehicle was stolen, it's a dead end) then he'd better be ready to spend a long time sleeping on the couch instead of sleeping in the bed. apparently such flew by you the first time

Yes, it did, your comment was quite ambiguous and still is. Are you saying the wife would be so put out that her husband didn't shoot the rapist instead of calling the police that she would punish him in this way? Wow, your understanding of rape victims is incredible.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

and yet, you still missed the boat........

spelled out, my comment meant this - if a man chooses to disbelieve his wife when she claims to have been raped, does nothing more than caspar milquetoast would do to catch the perpetrator (write down the license plate indeed....and if the vehicle was stolen, it's a dead end) then he'd better be ready to spend a long time sleeping on the couch instead of sleeping in the bed. apparently such flew by you the first time

Yes, it did, your comment was quite ambiguous and still is. Are you saying the wife would be so put out that her husband didn't shoot the rapist instead of calling the police that she would punish him in this way? Wow, your understanding of rape victims is incredible.

Could you leave in the name of the person you are quoting so the reader can follow along?