The State's New Gun Law Has People Talking 1/22/2008
Newsroom
The Castle Doctrine allows people to use whatever means necessary to protect themselves and their property without fear of civil liability, but now a new law expands on the castle law.
This law, nicknamed the "Carjacking Law," allows Texans to carry guns in their cars for self defense, even without a concealed handgun license. All you have to do is meet the law's other requirements, such as not being involved in a gang, not committing a crime, and keeping the gun out of sight.
Some are worried it promotes a shoot first, ask questions later strategy.
Isn't that a bit of a leap? The castle doctrine, which Texas has always had, allows self defense in the home. But doesn't the carry law only allow carrying the weapon and not use?
Posts: 956 | Location: Cherokee County, Rusk, Tx | Registered: July 11, 2001
As a lawyer, you may know that, but we also know that nonlawyers draw broader inferences from changes in the law. The story seems to suggest that the message derived from both new laws (and perhaps their nicknames) is that using guns in public is good and approved for more purposes than before. The expressed fear is that this will result in inappropriate use of deadly force where it might otherwise have been avoided. True or not true?
I'd have to say "True" as well, but the question is too simplistic.
Will there never be a case when some idiot uses in an inappropriate way, a pistol he keeps in his car? I'm sure there will be such cases.
But will the greater presence of pistols in autos that the law allows result in more lives being saved, and fewer successful carjackings? Surely that is true as well.
The question is: which will predominate. I believe the new statute will result in far more "appropriate" use of pistols, and save more lives, than would be the case under the old law.
Its always been legal to carry long guns in autos, and I can't recall any case where a ticked off motorist used one inappropriately. I'm sure its happened, but I can't recall such a case. I know of cases where the presence of a long gun in a vehicle saved an innocent life.
I reckon It would be tough to aim a rifle in a fit of road rage.
Also, anyone behind the wheel of an automobile is already wielding a deadly weapon. Our transportation system DEPENDS on mutual trust. Cars kill a lot more people than guns.
Deaths by firearm are more dramatic and therefore probably get more coverage in the news but in a "Man Bites Dog" sort of way. People die in car wrecks every day.
quote:Originally posted by Terry Breen: I can't recall any case where a ticked off motorist used one inappropriately.
I had a case a few years ago where a ticked off motorist, thinking he was confronting a young woman, got out of his car and aggresively approached her. Her two large male friends, previously unnoticed by Angry Man, got out of the car before he got too close. Angry Man then ran back to his own car and pulled out his gun which he then used to threaten them. They jumped back in the car and sped off to call the police.
Not sure where this case falls in your scale, Terry, but I just thought I'd share. I do think guns have some tendency to make people who are overly aggressive more confident about acting on those feelings. Not sure what would have happened here if the victims had been armed as well. Maybe the same thing, but if not, I doubt it would have come out better.
Posts: 622 | Location: San Marcos | Registered: November 13, 2003
Once again, we all seem happy to pass out the guns, so long as they only get in the hands of "good" people. It will be interesting to watch the SCOTUS wiggle around with that concept in looking at the constitutional right, which seems to suggest that the right to bear arms must be related to some socially appropriate function.
No wonder--South Dakota contains fewer than 10 people per square mile; Texas has almost 80 (despite having three times the land area of S.Dakota). Who cares if everyone has a gun if nobody is in range?
Posts: 622 | Location: San Marcos | Registered: November 13, 2003
But we in Texas (more specifically, East Texas' Upshur County) have Sweet Potatoes!!! All that sugarry goodness. Yum, Yum!! Surely that ought to put miles 'o smiles on the faces of our fellow Texans. "Turn those frowns upside down: We've got yams!" (Crowd echos, "We've got yams! We've got yams!")
Oh, wait. Oops. Sweet potatoes are full of fiber. Fiber probably contributes to people bein' cranky. Cranky people shoot other people.
Okay, JB, I guess we can't compete with maple syrup after all.
The former chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D, did extensive research on gun control, and has written the definitive book on the issue, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime & Gun-Control Laws."
As you may surmise from the book's title, the empirical evidence heavily favors those who say gun control laws are counter-productive in lowering crime.
I am unaware of any research on the correlation between eating sweet potatoes and violent crime.
