Armed Citizens

[Wingsofwind]

... On the other hand, I have been in lots of situations where I have gotten into the type of argument with some other person where, if we both had guns, there might well have been shots fired.

If you ever tried to get a concealed carry permit, this quote from you will stop your attempt. Instructors are entitled to deny anyone a permit based on the person's actions and thoughts. My instructor would have denied me mine if I had said something like that.

Also, most who have CCWs know the law and are less likely to get into heated arguments if they are carrying. They try to avoid any kind of trouble. Most don't even stop their vehicles right next to others at a traffic light, they will either stop more in front or more behind.

All your assumptions about people who carry are only your opinion and not facts. If you knew enough people who carry you will see that they are very polite citizens. They don't let little things get to them enough to 'want' to use a firearm in anger against others.

 

[Wingsofwind]

There's no such thing as a .38 caliber Glock. 9mm yes, .40 S&W yes. .38....no.

This just goes to show that most of those who argue against firearms, such as 'George Costanza', don't even know enough about them to be arguing against them. I have seen this too often.

If you are going to be against firearms and argue against them, please at least learn something about them first. Otherwise your argument is of no effect.

The fact that I mistakenly used a Glock .38 caliber weapon in the example I gave in no way detracts from the point that was being made. How about addressing that point instead of harping on a red herring?

See my last post. I Just said how people who carry are very polite and are more prone to avoid trouble.

 

[Wingsofwind]

You should. Crime plummets wherever concealed weapons are allowed. As you have also noted crime skyrockets wherever guns are denied to the civilian population. Australia is a wonderful example with violent crime increasing 44% after the gun bans.

The UK's situation I find particularly distasteful. An intruder can break into your home with a gun, you somehow manage to take it away from him and shoot him and you are the one who go's to prison. The UK is on a downhill slide from which I doubt she will recover for many decades.

As much as my patriotic conscience wants to refute and dismiss your observation, with what I'm assuming is focused on how UK law favours criminals - yes, you're right, we've allowed an intolerably liberal agenda to eradicate our right to defend ourselves and our property. We should take note from America's aggresive stance on intruders who will often use violence to avoid sanction for their crimes. I also think you're right that it will take a long time to re-establish ourselves as a people with a reputation for proudly being able to defend themselves without fear of prosecution. But, saying that, we only really have ourselves to blame for this inexcusable, liberally induced mess we've got ourselves into.

If we could somehow guarantee that armed citizens would act responsibly, then I might agree with you. But we can't. So I don't.

So you think the government knows best? And that Law abiding citiznes can not think for themselves?

People like you are why we are in the mess we are in.

 

[Wingsofwind]

I respect that. But have you ever gotten into a road rage incident with another driver? Come on, now - we all have at one time or another. What if both of you had been armed at the time? You sound like the kind of guy who probably would have kept his cool - but how about that other guy? You can't always predict what someone else might do in such a situation.

I, for one, would find little solace in the fact that I was armed if someone in another car was drawing down on me.

Well, for starters, Im not a guy, lol.
And, i would not have my pistol in my car unless I was driving a very long distance that would take days. Yes, I have gotten into a road rage thing but mostly it was finger flipping.
The other guy in your scenario? Well..if he is so pissed off he feels he needs to shoot my ass because I flipped him off, then all I can say is he better hope Im dead. My plan is to have protection in my home. And I dont drive long distances any more..so its a moot point. Nobody has control over someone else. They only have control of themselves.

Well, the gun nuts on this thread are the kind who WOULD have their gun with them in the car. They'd have their gun with them in the SHOWER.
And you are so correct that nobody has control over someone else. That is precisely my point. I guarantee you, there are plenty of crazies out there, who would shoot you right between your pretty little eyes for flipping them off - or even looking sideways at them. You were just lucky.

You are right, I would have mine in the shower if I could. And I do carry in my car also, but I also avoid trouble. I do not engage in 'road rage'. That is the difference between those who value their right to carry and those who have no idea what it is like to carry.

 

[Wingsofwind]

If I could afford it, Id get another handgun. But the costs are horrendous. Shotgun will suffice. And Im only getting it cuz I have a horrible idea that eventually buying guns will be against the law but those already owned will be grandfathered in.

Shotguns are fun to take to the range.

I used to think the recoil would cause me to be gun shy with a shotgun. But I LOVE the recoil. It is kind of like a 'high' for me.

Oh, and BTW, I am a woman also

 

[Wingsofwind]

That is precisely what the police are for - protecting the safety of citizens. You would not have been wasting their time. I submit the police would much prefer to come out and kick a couple of jerks off of your car than they would to come out and investigate a shooting - regardless of the reason for the shooting.

And what would you have done if they had still not moved, you had pulled out your weapon and they had just looked at you, laughed, and said fuck you?

No, George they're not. There is no legal responsibilty on the part of police to protect you. None. Below are many cases fully referenced that show the police have no legal obligation for the protection of the individual citizen. I suggest you read a few of them.


Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

Court Says No Protection Required

Taking On Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection?

Legal Snares for the Unwary Law-Abiding Citizen

I was flat told by an officer from HPD that there job is to react to crime and prevent it if they can. They can not sit in your drive way waiting to catch bad guys. He recomended I shoot an intruder to kill him to avoid a law sute .

I was told this same thing when a intruder came into our home. They told us we were in the right if we had shot him. It would have saved them a lot of paper work and tax payers money.

But thankfully we didn't have to. Our girls were at the table eating supper and would have had to see it.

 

[westwall]

Huntsville, AL -

After casing the location on two previous visits, an armed robber entered the Chazz liquor store in Florence, Ala. and attempted to strong-arm the clerk. An altercation ensued in which the clerk was able to retrieve a gun and fire at the criminal, striking the robber and causing him to flee. In his escape, the criminal only made it to the store parking lot, where he collapsed and died. After an initial investigation, police determined that the robber was on probation for a previous robbery conviction. Chazz manager Terry Rhodes hoped that the incident would deter future robbery attempts, stating, “I know times are hard and everything, but I hope they'll think twice, because this is not something anybody enjoys doing. You don't want to kill anybody, but sometimes you're afraid for your life, you don't know what they're gonna do.” Police do not plan to charge the clerk.




Anniston, AL -

A woman was alone in her home in Piedmont, Ala., when she heard a suspicious noise. After retrieving a handgun, the woman searched the house and noticed that her sliding glass door had been broken and a man with a flashlight was inside the home. The intruder yelled something at the homeowner, who then shot the intruder several times, killing him. Police noted that it is unlikely the homeowner will face any charges, with Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson stating, “She was totally within her rights to defend herself.”




Birmingham, AL -

Career criminal Kevin Duane Dudley entered the Bait Shop in Bessemer, Ala., drew a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money from the owner. While Dudley was holding the owner at gunpoint, two customers walked into the store, distracting Dudley long enough for the store owner to grab his pistol. The owner then fired at Dudley, striking and killing him. After an investigation, it was shown that Dudley had been convicted of robbery in 1996 and spent time in prison. More recently, Dudley had been a suspect in a number of other armed robberies as well as a murder

A well armed society is a polite society.

Gangs are so polite

They were pretty respectful of certain areas during the Rodney King riots in LA. In those areas where people were unarmed they ran rampant, in those areas where people were armed they either kept quiet or they got shot.....43 of them were killed during the riots.
10 other people were killed.

The LAPD abandoned Koreatown and left them to fend for themselves which they did fairly well, they were responsible for the vast majority of gangbanger fatalities but sadly lost 6 of their own. Several iconic images were taken of the Koreans defending their lives and property, many armed with assault weapons.

 

[Wingsofwind]

A well armed society is a polite society.

Gangs are so polite

They were pretty respectful of certain areas during the Rodney King riots in LA. In those areas where people were unarmed they ran rampant, in those areas where people were armed they either kept quiet or they got shot.....43 of them were killed during the riots.
10 other people were killed.

The LAPD abandoned Koreatown and left them to fend for themselves which they did fairly well, they were responsible for the vast majority of gangbanger fatalities but sadly lost 6 of their own. Several iconic images were taken of the Koreans defending their lives and property, many armed with assault weapons.

Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons. Is that what you were meaning?

 

[Cmdr Sheppard]

It's a proven fact that:
Higher gun ownership rates = less crime

Remember, the bad guys already have guns (black market), which is why us good guys need guns too

 

[westwall]

Gangs are so polite

They were pretty respectful of certain areas during the Rodney King riots in LA. In those areas where people were unarmed they ran rampant, in those areas where people were armed they either kept quiet or they got shot.....43 of them were killed during the riots.
10 other people were killed.

The LAPD abandoned Koreatown and left them to fend for themselves which they did fairly well, they were responsible for the vast majority of gangbanger fatalities but sadly lost 6 of their own. Several iconic images were taken of the Koreans defending their lives and property, many armed with assault weapons.

Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons. Is that what you were meaning?

No, I am using the accepted media terminology. And to be precise they would be classified as selective fire weapons if they were indeed capable of fully automatic fire. The only fully automatic weapons out there with no self loading (semi automatic here in the US) are most SMG's and belt fed GPMG's or HMG's.

 

[rightwinger]

... On the other hand, I have been in lots of situations where I have gotten into the type of argument with some other person where, if we both had guns, there might well have been shots fired.

If you ever tried to get a concealed carry permit, this quote from you will stop your attempt. Instructors are entitled to deny anyone a permit based on the person's actions and thoughts. My instructor would have denied me mine if I had said something like that.

Also, most who have CCWs know the law and are less likely to get into heated arguments if they are carrying. They try to avoid any kind of trouble. Most don't even stop their vehicles right next to others at a traffic light, they will either stop more in front or more behind.

All your assumptions about people who carry are only your opinion and not facts. If you knew enough people who carry you will see that they are very polite citizens. They don't let little things get to them enough to 'want' to use a firearm in anger against others.

Your argument only applies to those with a concealed carry permit. It does not apply to the millions of guns legally in the hands of people who may not be as temperate in their demeanor

A minor conflict between two unarmed people can escalate to a fistfight. The same conflict when one or both are armed can get someone killed. An armed person tends to take on an "I ain't going to take no shit attitude"

 

[Douger]

All you need is ______________ DaDaDaDaDa,,,all you need is ________. _____
________ is all ya need.

Ya like this mini ?

 

[Douger]

Thank duh murkin Gawd, Lolly Norte for this one.

 

[Missourian]

Billings, Montana -

Out for a Sunday morning drive with his wife and two children, Buford Harris was feeling good. It was a beautiful day, Buford's wife, Clara, was in the seat next to him, singing happily and, best of all, Buford had his trusty, .357 magnum right next to him there in the center console, loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come Buford's way.

Directly behind Buford was a pickup truck being driven by Billy Bob Cutler, another married man. There were only two occupants of the Cutler vehicle - Billy Bob and his fully loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come his way, .38 caliber, Glock, semi-automatic handgun.

Buford was driving a tad slower than Billy Bob. Billy Bob went to pass Buford. As he did so, Buford sped up to prevent Billy Bob from passing him. Billy Bob looked over at Buford and shot him a dirty look as he sped up even faster. As Buford flipped Billy Bob off, Billy Bob cut sharply in front of him, causing Buford to have to brake sharply.

This was trouble. Both men instantly pulled up their respective fire arms and began firing at each other. When it was all over, Buford's wife was dead, one of his children was blinded for life and Billy Bob was in a coma. He would die three weeks later.

Thank GOD Montana has a law authorizing citizens to carry weapons. Think what would have happened if that had not been the case . . .

There's no such thing as a .38 caliber Glock. 9mm yes, .40 S&W yes. .38....no.

Whatever. My post is not an actual haplpening. I made it up to illustrate the objection to arming citizens. Stuff like that would happen all too often, and the danger from citizens shooting other citizens in road rage incidents or just because they got mad at them, far outweighs the benefit from citizens being able to shoot genuine bad guys.

Think about it - which happens more often, road rage incidents or citizens observing an actual crime taking place? By far, confrontations between citizens happen much more often than citizens actually observing a crime in progress. How many times have YOU been involved in a confrontation with someone else? How many times have you seen an armed criminal committing a crime?

I am in favor of getting bad guys. But I am not in favor of arming citizens for that purpose. Once again - compare the number of times you have been in a confrontation with another citizen that could well have resulted in weapons being drawn or fired if both of you had been armed, to the number of times a real criminal has threatened you (or someone in your presence) with life threatening action.

George, it is ALREADY legal to carry a loaded firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle WITHOUT ANY PERMIT WHATSOEVER in Missouri as long as you are over 21 and may legally own a firearm.

"571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

...

(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

...

Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event.​

So "Show-me" all the road rage shootings.

You can also try Texas and Oklahoma...they have similar "Safe Traveler" laws.

 

[rightwinger]

.

George, it is ALREADY legal to carry a loaded firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle WITHOUT ANY PERMIT WHATSOEVER in Missouri as long as you are over 21 and may legally own a firearm.

So "Show-me" all the road rage shootings.

You can also try Texas and Oklahoma...they have similar "Safe Traveler" laws.

Not too hard

SAYLES SHOOTING: Abilene grand jury will decide on charges in deadly incident » Abilene Reporter-News
"He (the man in the pickup) had no concern for the guy in the Mustang or the other drivers."

Jeter said the pickup driver, who was clean cut and about 40, jumped out of the truck and by the time David got out of his car, the fatal shot was fired, striking David in the head.

"He came out shooting," Jeter said of the driver of the pickup. "As soon as he did it you could see him (the shooter) just wilt — he looked like a guy that was scared to death."

Shots fired in MoPac road rage incident | KXAN.com
According to Smith, the driver then cut him off and intentionally swerved in front of him. This continued down the highway for seven to eight miles until the two drivers reached the 5000 block of South MoPac near Southwest Parkway.

That is when Smith, fearing for his life, fired two shots from a 9mm handgun, hitting the truck’s tires twice although he would tell police he was trying to hit the driver.

When asked by police why he did not either stop or exit the highway or call 911, Smith told them he thought he was covered under the Castle Doctrine.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

In an ideal world, a property owner would be able to give an intruder the chance to surrender themselves to the [armed] occupant to be held until the authorities arrive. Reality, on the other hand, reminds us that there are x amount of variables to contend with in such a volatile and unpredictable situation.

In general, I don't really see a problem with homeowners being able to use deadly force in clear-cut scenarios without fear of prosecution. This is an area in which the UK could really learn from the US. In the UK, thanks to over twelve years of an ultra-liberal, slavishly pro-EU government, that means laws remain in place that by-and-large favour an injured intruder over a terrified homeowner that has taken matters into his own hands by forcibly repelling an intruder, you stand a good chance of going to prison for shooting or injuring an intruder. I kid you not when I tell you that I've lost count of how many times I've read in the papers that an intruder has successfully sued his victims for damages because in confronting the intruder on their property the homeowner infringed upon the intruder's human rights.

I don't, and never will, condone legislation that permits citizens to walk the streets with a concealed handgun.

It is the same here. If a woman shoots a man in the process of raping her he has full rights ti sue her. This is one thing I remember quite well from CCW class. Our teacher told us even if you kill the bad guy, you are still open to civil action from his family.

I was told the same thing. Thankfully we had an attorney going through the class as well and gave us some pointers.
He said...

1. If you have to pull your firearm, it is best if you use it. You would be asked why you had to pull your firearm and why you felt you did not need to actually use it. And if you felt it was best not to use it, then why did you pull it. Brandishing your weapon can be an offence here.

2. If you do have to use it, don't say a word to the authorities. You know the 'Miranda Rights' that are recited to you when arrested? Where it says, 'anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law'.

The best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and get a good attorney. And hope for a good Judge.

That was almost exactly what our teacher said. We were told to fire, and keep firing until the bad guy hits the ground. For the record, I dont utilize my CCW anymore. I find it physically uncomfortable, but I do keep a gun in the car and do carry openly ware legal. Our instructor will offer free classes to those who are against CCW or CHL what ever you want to call it just so her can educate an anti. He does not always convert them, but they do say that it is great fun, and they do acknowledge that CCW holders are not a bunch of birthers in cowboy hats. I will say this, They spent a good deal of time teaching us how not to be a victim, and how NOT to have to use our weapons. This training alone is priceless and in my mind as important as the weapon training.

 

[Missourian]

George, it is ALREADY legal to carry a loaded firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle WITHOUT ANY PERMIT WHATSOEVER in Missouri as long as you are over 21 and may legally own a firearm.

So "Show-me" all the road rage shootings.

You can also try Texas and Oklahoma...they have similar "Safe Traveler" laws.

Not too hard

Shots fired in MoPac road rage incident | KXAN.com
According to Smith, the driver then cut him off and intentionally swerved in front of him. This continued down the highway for seven to eight miles until the two drivers reached the 5000 block of South MoPac near Southwest Parkway.

That is when Smith, fearing for his life, fired two shots from a 9mm handgun, hitting the truck’s tires twice although he would tell police he was trying to hit the driver.

When asked by police why he did not either stop or exit the highway or call 911, Smith told them he thought he was covered under the Castle Doctrine.

I found about 15 in Missouri.

Fifteen in the last five years.

Out of 3,000,000+ legal gun owners.

Puts a huge hole in the "road rage" argument.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Not too hard

I found about 15 in Missouri.

Fifteen in the last five years.

Out of 3,000,000+ legal gun owners.

Puts a huge hole in the "road rage" argument.

Wasn't a good one to begin with. I have herd that car jacking incidence are rolled into road rage stats.

 

[Cmdr Sheppard]

Just wait, the liberals are going to come in here and be all like "guns are the devil, they should all be banned, because I'm a fucking dumbass communist"

 

[rightwinger]

George, it is ALREADY legal to carry a loaded firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle WITHOUT ANY PERMIT WHATSOEVER in Missouri as long as you are over 21 and may legally own a firearm.

So "Show-me" all the road rage shootings.

You can also try Texas and Oklahoma...they have similar "Safe Traveler" laws.

Not too hard

Shots fired in MoPac road rage incident | KXAN.com
According to Smith, the driver then cut him off and intentionally swerved in front of him. This continued down the highway for seven to eight miles until the two drivers reached the 5000 block of South MoPac near Southwest Parkway.

That is when Smith, fearing for his life, fired two shots from a 9mm handgun, hitting the truck’s tires twice although he would tell police he was trying to hit the driver.

When asked by police why he did not either stop or exit the highway or call 911, Smith told them he thought he was covered under the Castle Doctrine.

I found about 15 in Missouri.

Fifteen in the last five years.

Out of 3,000,000+ legal gun owners.

Puts a huge hole in the "road rage" argument.

Not really

Doesnt mean that is all there is and doesn't cover those cases where a gun was pulled and no shots were fired

The point is that owning a gun provides certain protections as posted in the OP. It also provides opportunities where a minor conflict can escalate to gunfire because a weapon is present
We are a gun owning society. We have to live with both the plusses and minuses of a second amendment. While the NRA is great at highlighting the positives, they intentionally ignore the minuses