Burglar Sheldon Reece, 32, was shot in the abdomen by homeowner Abel
Sisneros in Fort Worth, Texas, in December. According to a report in
the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, to enter the house, Reece had to boldly
disregard two signs outside: "Warning. Nothing inside is worth risking
your life for. Owners of this property are highly skilled to protect
life, liberty and property from criminal attacks" and "No trespassing.
Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." [Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, 12-21-06]

On 2007-01-28 10:43:35 -0600, "KD" gmail.com> said:

Interesting indeed.

One argument made in support of widespread ownership of gubs for
personal protection is that if a would-be criminal even suspects that a
person or a household might be armed, then s/he probably will move
along and not even try.

Here is a case where it's quite clear that the owners of the home were
not only armed but ready to use those arms in their personal defense
and yet Reece simply ignored the warnings.

Perhaps universal ownership of gubs is not the panacea some would have
us believe it to be.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:53:08 -0600, Boston Blackie mail.com>
wrote:

I bet you he'll think twice about doing it again though.

On 2007-01-28 17:52:48 -0600, Richard Thomas dicksonlife.com> said:

Boston Blackie wrote:

On 2007-01-28 19:51:45 -0600, Paul Stevens bellsouth.net> said:

bb's:
Yes, I suppose so. "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's
in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on -
shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

is worth quoting again, but I want to reply to my friend Richard.

Boston Blackie wrote:

On 28 Jan 2007 19:06:00 -0800, "MrWonderful" aol.com>
wrote:

Perhaps the burglar will sue for breach of contract as he was only
shot the once...

Rich

On 28 Jan 2007 19:06:00 -0800, "MrWonderful" aol.com>
wrote:

Give me a minute, I'm just trying to diagram out what you said to
derive some meaning to it...

In the meantime, BB's original reply to KD was, of course, a strawman
argument as I don't believe anyone has ever said that more guns will
mean the elimination of crime entirely. Indeed, even in his actual
statement, "One argument made in support of widespread ownership of
gubs for personal protection is that if a would-be criminal even
suspects that a person or a household might be armed, then s/he
probably will move along and not even try.", the word "probably"
allows plenty of room for those who will not.