Thursday, January 24, 2008

A New Word for "Three"

But the spate of shootings begs the question: Did the castle law – which gives people the right to use whatever means necessary to protect themselves and their property without fear of civil liability – unleash a flurry of gunfire? [More]
"Spate."

Thanks, Dallas Morning News. I was looking for the answer to 14-down, triad, begins with "s"...

[Via Tony G]

7 comments:

Bruce said...

No story about the recent "spate" of break-ins and home invasions?

Hmmm...

Kent McManigal said...

This was silly: (Marsha McCartney of Dallas, a member of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)"I find that shocking – killing people over things," she said. "The question you have to ask is: Does the punishment fit the crime?

"People don't get the death penalty for breaking and entering. Defending your family, defending yourself against someone who is armed is one thing. But now it's like we don't need to call the police anymore."

Did we ever "need" to call the "crime janitors"?

Sentenza said...

They need to rephrase the question so that it's not "It is worth killing someone over that stuff?" asked of the person defending his or her lawfully acquired property that he or she had to legally slave away for untold hours in order to acquire. The question should be asked of the criminals, "Is it worth dying because you want that free stuff?"

Divemedic said...

As a gun owner,I am asked all the time, "So you would kill someone over your television? Isn't the burglars life worth more than a TV set?"

My answer is always the same:

If the person breaks into my house while I am home there are only two possibilities: Either he knew I was home, and didn't care, or he didn't bother to check if I was home. The only logical reason this could be, is that he has a plan to somehow keep me from reporting him to the authorities. No matter what that plan is, it cannot go well for me and my family.

So to answer your question, HE obviously feels that my television is worth my life, and should I resort to deadly force, I fire not to take his life, but to protect my own.

Anonymous said...

Oh, NO, Divemedic...Not somebody who has actually bothered to think things-THROUGH, to a rational conclusion! In the event of a "hot prowl," that is, a burglary during-which the residents are PRESENT, or a straight-up home invasion, the perp has to know that there's a possibility that the resident is going to infer that their life, or the lives of the other residents, might well be in danger. Noted lethal force trainer, and expert witness, Mass Ayoob, (a longtime, veteran cop) has pointed out the folly of telling a burglar to "freeze," without doing so A.) From COVER, and B.) with an INSTANTANEOUS preparedness to SHOOT, since, statistically, the vast majority of (armed) thugs to whom you shout, "Freeze" will wheel-around, and SHOOT AT YOU. You're RIGHT, Sir, it's not ABOUT the damned Television. I wouldn't kill somebody over a TV, either, but the "material possessions" are not the POINT, are they?

Jackson said...

Of course this is the world that liberals desire, in their lefty little hearts. Where people just take things, and no one stops them.

Like the thug in Ferguson, MO who just took a large box of cheap cigars. Fearless, and then fearlessly walking down the street. And cops, in a similar fashion are supposed to take a beating from a thug, because, again, isn't a human life worth more than a few black eyes, or a broken eye socket?

This refrain has been heard over and over from the blacks and their enablers, the liberal media. It's part of the reason they hate guns, it prevents mob rule, which essentially is what many of them secretly desire.

DJMoore said...

The robber apparently thinks that the THING, whatever it is, is worth a life or three--he simply doesn't think it will be his.

And all too often, the THINGS are not the only target of the robbery. half an hour or so of noisy fun with any females that happen to be on hand is a bonus.