3 ms·

There's a big difference in protecting property in your domicile vs protecting your property while you're out and about. Most serious gun self defense legal adv

There's a big difference in protecting property in your domicile vs protecting your property while you're out and about. Most serious gun self defense legal advocates will advocate not protecting your property while out in public, unless your life is truly in danger, simply because you are going to incur immediate legal issues and at least 20k in debt. Whatever you were protecting is not likely going to be worth the legal, or emotional costs of self defense. When it comes to protecting your property, as in your domicile- you are having your safest place violated. Your life is more likely in danger, and laws are also more likely to favor you, lessening the legal risk. If I'm carjacked, I have insurance, if someone breaks into my house, where I have several guns and my family- I have much less to lose by killing the intruder.

pcl 4y ago
Not in Texas — the Texas castle doctrine extends to your vehicles and workplace. See section 9.31 here. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
MengerSponge 4y ago
Again, depends on the state. If you're a white person in Texas? It's vanishingly unlikely that your interaction with the state legal apparatus will extend beyond a hat tip and a thank you sir/ma'am. Think of it as a "barbarians at the gate" type situation. You're defending civilization from lawlessness. Whether or not your life is in danger doesn't matter in many places. You similarly only have an obligation to deescalate in some states.