parados wrote:maporsche wrote:
There also the obvious chance that the criminals, who were there for a home invasion (theft), would have seen the gun, or heard Taylor say he had a gun and, not wanting to die for a TV or stereo, have left without doing any harm.
Speculation on your part. They were willing to shoot him when he didn't have a gun. Why wouldn't the criminals have shot Taylor if they saw he had a gun?
You are wanting us to believe that simply having a gun will defuse a situation when the other person also has a gun. That is complete nonsense.
Quote:
Or if Taylor were simply able to protect the entry way to his bedroom, the fact that there were 4 of them would have been offset by the small opening of the bedroom door (where only 1 or maybe 2 could fit at a time). Anyone who's ever taken any sort of firearm defense class would know that.
I betcha Taylor's wife, parent's, children (if any) with Taylor had a gun with him.
A lot of assumptions there, many of which go against the reported story of what happened.
Taylor heard a noise and went to investigate so wasn't in his bedroom.
Why would Taylor KNOW there were 4 of them just because he heard a noise?
Why would the 4 of them be close together or even in the same part of the house?
I guess there's a whole lot of speculation on both our parts huh.
You are the one speculating that a gun would have changed the situation.
Somehow in your mind a criminal that would shoot a man armed with a machete would just turn a walk away if that same man was armed with a gun or was shooting that gun at other criminals. There is no rational reason to believe that a gun would have made the shooting less likely.
parados wrote:You are the one speculating that a gun would have changed the situation.
Somehow in your mind a criminal that would shoot a man armed with a machete would just turn a walk away if that same man was armed with a gun or was shooting that gun at other criminals. There is no rational reason to believe that a gun would have made the shooting less likely.
I would shoot the man armed with a machete hoping that he wouldn't get any closer to where the machete could do some damage. From 20 feet away there's not much a machete could do.
On the other hand, if the guy had a gun I'd be much more likely to duck/hide/run in order to save my life.
I don't understand how you don't see anything rational in that response. A man with a gun 20 feet away is immediately threatening. A man with a machete 20 feet away is a dead man.
So your argument is that you don't use a gun unless the threat is NOT immediate. OK.... sure....
It kind of defeats the you need guns for protection argument, don't you think?
First, I'm sorry for Taylor, and rather regret that when Gus asked on the NFL thread, that I didn't up and start a thread about it. But, I'd never heard of him to that minute.
I see where the gun issues make sense to talk about, but would rather that be separate just for a bit.
So, Sean Taylor, requiescat in pace.
Back later on the rest.
I'm with Osso. Go fight about guns without Taylor's name at the top of the page.
A lot of you are off in your facts on the case, and there will be more come out. He was a hard luck kid trying to do better, and he deserves better than this, no matter what.
Thank You,
RH
Rockhead wrote:I'm with Osso. Go fight about guns without Taylor's name at the top of the page.
A lot of you are off in your facts on the case, and there will be more come out. He was a hard luck kid trying to do better, and he deserves better than this, no matter what.
Thank You,
RH
I'm sorry, but no.
Taylor's case is the EXACT reason why gun control laws are poorly written and only serve to harm those who obey them.
parados wrote:So your argument is that you don't use a gun unless the threat is NOT immediate. OK.... sure....
It kind of defeats the you need guns for protection argument, don't you think?
That is not my argument.
I'm telling you that it is very possible, even likely, that the guys who broke into Taylor's house to STEAL had no desire to wind up DEAD, and had Taylor had a gun the threat of DEATH would have been MUCH greater than him with a machete.
If you say so, but I will check back, and will check facts. Proceed if you wish, but let's dont't step on the dead....
You guys are sad....
Rockhead wrote:If you say so, but I will check back, and will check facts. Proceed if you wish, but let's dont't step on the dead....
No one is "stepping on the dead" or speaking ill of Taylor at all.
We are talking about the situation that probably caused his death, which is a problem with the law, not anything Taylor did.
What probably caused his death is a situation that has been ongoing that we do not have details of yet....
Somebody really wanted to hurt him. It was NOT a burglary.
If he'd wanted a gun, he woulda had one.
(don't think that law scared him)
But OK
Rockhead wrote:
Somebody really wanted to hurt him. It was NOT a burglary.
Not according to the cops who've investigated the crime thus far......but maybe.
Quote:
If he'd wanted a gun, he woulda had one.
(don't think that law scared him)
Well he had a gun in the past and apparently that's what got him on probation in the first place (where you're not allowed to own a gun), and probation officers do random checks of your residence to ensure you're in compliance.
He obviously didn't have a problem with firearms in the past....but the law changed all that.
Judge tells him he can't posses a gun, and he -- wanting to obey and not wanting to go to prison -- complies with that order. That's a plausible explanation for why he was unarmed. Many other explanations, of course.
But I guarantee you I would much rather have a 20 gauge in my hand than a machete if my home is invaded by gun wielding thugs.
Oh gad....I'll argue with you privately.
RIP Sean Taylor
RH
Rockhead wrote:Oh gad....I'll argue with you privately.
RIP Sean Taylor
RH
You play with home invaders how you want, stoneface.
Nobody here is speaking ill of the dead. The effort of the thread appears to point out laws that resulted in Taylor not having firepower to fight back when armed thugs broke into his home. He had no chance armed with a knife, but had he jacked a couple of shells into a shotgun instead, that thug might have been the one lying there bleeding on Taylor's floor.
This wasn't a home invasion.
I give up.
...my backup is an indian, a cop, a sailor....oh, ****....
I always thought that burglars do not carry guns, since if caught in the act they can claim they were only trespassing. If caught with firearms, the prison sentence is much greater. Also, if they are shot by a homeowner, and they (the burglars) are unarmed, the homeowner has committed a crime in some states, I thought.
Regardless, those who believe in their right to bear arms oftentimes do not focus on the gun accidents in homes with children, or in the use of guns against people for non-robberies, or any other use of guns that result in innocent deaths, they just want their right to bear arms (even though it was meant originally for militias).
This country being large, with many people living in isolated areas, I believe, these people should have the right to bear arms. But those living in cities, I believe, would be in more danger if guns proliferated in urban landscapes. That being said, there's probably no solution that makes everyone happy.
