The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - (TX) Man shoots boy he said was stealing his chickens

**Mike Irwin** · April 22, 2001, 02:57 AM

KJM,

Obviously you've missed not only my point, but also the ground swell change in how things work in this country in hotly charged debates.

At one time, facts mattered for something.

Unfortunatly, now it's all appearance. New, more restrictive, laws are passed, not on facts, but on emotions fueled by appearance.

Think I'm wrong about that?

LOOK AT THE GUN! IT HAS A FLASH HIDER AND BAYONET LUG, SO IT MUST BE EVIL! BAN IT! BAN IT! BAN THE EVIL GUN!

Saw off the bayonet lug and drop the flash hider, and voila, a gun that's now legal based on its appearance, not its functionality.

You can claim some factually based high road, but the fact remains that if your opposition gains the EMOTIONAL high road, they're going to hand you YTA on a platter.

And that's exactly what has been happening to gunowners in this country for the past 3 decades. Few laws have been passed based on facts.

You claim that I'm falling into some Rosie O'D trap? Guess what? You've just been squashed by their emotional boulder. And that emotional boulder is more powerful, larger, and more influential than any fact you'll ever be able to quote.

Now, on to your erroneous assumption that I don't agree with the Texas law.

WRONG!

Had you bothered to read, and comprehend, my posts on this subject, you'll see that I don't have a problem with the law per se.

I do have a problem with how this gentleman applied it.

I guess blindly shooting into the night at sound & light is something you support?

Once again we're back to the hunting analogy. What hunter in his right mind shoots at sound without being able to identify the target?

But somehow it's OK for a homeowner to let fly when he THINKS, but apparently doesn't know for a fact, that something hinky might be going on?

April 22, 2001, 02:57 AM	#80
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,382	KJM, Obviously you've missed not only my point, but also the ground swell change in how things work in this country in hotly charged debates. At one time, facts mattered for something. Unfortunatly, now it's all appearance. New, more restrictive, laws are passed, not on facts, but on emotions fueled by appearance. Think I'm wrong about that? LOOK AT THE GUN! IT HAS A FLASH HIDER AND BAYONET LUG, SO IT MUST BE EVIL! BAN IT! BAN IT! BAN THE EVIL GUN! Saw off the bayonet lug and drop the flash hider, and voila, a gun that's now legal based on its appearance, not its functionality. You can claim some factually based high road, but the fact remains that if your opposition gains the EMOTIONAL high road, they're going to hand you YTA on a platter. And that's exactly what has been happening to gunowners in this country for the past 3 decades. Few laws have been passed based on facts. You claim that I'm falling into some Rosie O'D trap? Guess what? You've just been squashed by their emotional boulder. And that emotional boulder is more powerful, larger, and more influential than any fact you'll ever be able to quote. Now, on to your erroneous assumption that I don't agree with the Texas law. WRONG! Had you bothered to read, and comprehend, my posts on this subject, you'll see that I don't have a problem with the law per se. I do have a problem with how this gentleman applied it. I guess blindly shooting into the night at sound & light is something you support? Once again we're back to the hunting analogy. What hunter in his right mind shoots at sound without being able to identify the target? But somehow it's OK for a homeowner to let fly when he THINKS, but apparently doesn't know for a fact, that something hinky might be going on? __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.