Guns in homes

We need right to defend ourselves, not run

Re: "Bills would arm owners with right to use deadly force – Legislature: Residents would not have to try to flee first," Wednesday news story.

Marsha McCartney says people defending themselves are not going to jail – "That's just not the case," she says – but that's just not true.

Many Texans who have defended themselves from criminals bent on violent actions found themselves held up to scrutiny as suspects and had to expend funds to defend themselves. Ms. McCartney conveniently forgets that they exist.

Gordon Hale III was arrested for his self-defense shooting of Kenny Tavai and had to wait for a grand jury to no-bill him. Four other Texans were acquitted at jury trial, people who would not have had to go through what they did if this "castle" law were in effect.

The Rev. Peter Johnson says, "The solution to violence is not more violence," and he may be right, but the only response to a violent attacker is adequate self-defense, not retreat.

Texans need the right to defend ourselves, not the obligation to run away.

Jim Longley, Allen

Many law enforcement officials don't support it

Your article failed to mention the numerous district attorneys, police chiefs and other law enforcement officials who oppose this "castle" bill.

You also failed to mention all the Texans who know that you don't fix something that isn't broke. No one is in jail for acting in what a jury decided is legitimate self-defense. This law represents a dangerous step backward in public policy. It encourages the use of deadly force and empoweres potentially dangerous people.

It creates a loophole that allows a shooter to use deadly force as a first resort, rather than a last resort

Lori Jefferson Foster, Dallas

'Shoot-first' characterization is a scare tactic

Marsha McCartney of the North Texas Brady Campaign relies on scare tactics by referring to this bill as a "shoot-first bill." She paints a picture of homeowners basically firing at will at anyone coming on their property.

Regardless of what she wants us to believe, House Bill 284 does not change any of the required legal justifications for using deadly force in self-defense. The legal justification must be met, or that person would be subject to prosecution.

Similar scare tactics were used against the current concealed handgun license bill. Opponents offered images of carnage in the streets; none of those dire predictions came true.

Phillip Herbst, Rockwall