Armed Citizens

[Wingsofwind]

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.

Too bad those on this forum who are against firearms don't realize this is taught along with the training. Not to mention that many who own firearms that do not go through the class know how important it is NOT to use their weapon if they do not have to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if we all just armed ourselves to the teeth there'd less property crime?

Yeah, I believe that.

I also believe that crimes would become even more violent, but I don't doubt there might be less of it.

Well, evidence shows that, in fact, criminals ARE less likely to commit crimes when the victim is likely to be present if they believe the victim is likely to be armed. So the question now is, what are YOU basing your belief that "crimes would become even more violent" on?

 

[Wingsofwind]

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.

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

The NRA does NOT ignore the minuses. I have gotten a few e-mails where they pointed out incidents where a gun was used illegally and stated that it will make it harder for gun owners to 'fight the fight' against gun grabbing Liberals. They use these incidents to show how important it is to educate others on how to NOT use a weapon in situations. They stress how education is the key.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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 . . .

One small problem with your story, which puts the credibility of all of it into question:

Glock has never made a .38 caliber firearm in any configuration.

Other than that, cool story, bro.

He wants to talk about the evils of gun ownership, and "just happens" to tell a story set in Montana, with lead characters named Buford and Billy Bob? What about that indicated any "credibility" to begin with? It seemed as transparent as Saran Wrap to ME that he was making the whole thing up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Alabama is a Castle Doctrine State. You can kill to protect your property if the assailant poses any threat while illegally on your property.

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.

That's not an "ideal world". That's a movie script written by a guy on LSD, because nothing else would explain such an idiotic fantasy.

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.

Yeah, because while you generously allow that people should be able to defend themselves in their homes, they should be DEFENSELESS on the streets, damn it! It's just not sporting if you don't give the criminals SOME window of opportunity, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, what you REALLY mean is, you think everyone but you is a fucking moron who can't be counted on not to nail their own dicks to the fencepost without benevolent elites like you to babysit them. If that were not the case, you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time vainly trying to demonstrate your point by making up stories about what you're sure people WOULD do; you'd have GENUINELY demonstrated your point by pointing to actual events. At the point where you have to lie to try to win a debate, you should just shut up.

 

[Wingsofwind]

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

The pros outweigh the cons by several orders of magnitude.

240 total gun homicides for the year in the state of Missouri, most in K.C. and St. Louis.

3,000,000+ legal gun owners and 7,000,000+ legal guns owned in Missouri.

125,000 + CCW permits issued in Missouri.

It is obvious that the overwhelming majority of gun owners in Missouri are responsible, law abiding citizens.

That's a no brainer and has never been questioned. The vast majority of car owners are never involved in a fatal accident

And the vast majority of car owners are never involved in 'road rage' that escalate into conflicts either. That makes road rage with a firearm even less than what you try to make it look.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Let's see here. 300 million people. 320 million firearms in their possession. 40,000 on averge killed by guns every year. That includes cops killing bad guys, good guys killing bad guys (twice as often as cops), bad guys killing good guys (sadly) and bad guys killing bad guys (the overwhelming majority of gun deaths) and of course accidents (around 900 per year).

62 million cars kill 40,000 as well, with the majority being drunk driving (25,000 on average)

800,000 doctors according to the AMA kill 100,000 people every year due to misdiagnosis, malpractice, faulty drug prescription and simple mistakes.

In other words you are far more likely to die at the hands of a doctor then you are from a firearm. And more to the point one million times a year a citizen saves his/her life or his/her families by having a gun when it was needed.

I don't think your qualified to render an opinion on this because you clearly know nothing of the subject.

When I want your opinion on my qualifications to render an opinion on anything, I will ask you for it. In the meantime, keep your God damn, obnoxious pie hole shut on the subject. Got it?

I question your statistics. As for your interpretation of those statistics, that goes without saying.

Yes, the guy wasting everyone's time with fairy tales to replace the evidence he can't produce should DEFINITELY feel justified in 1) defending his qualifications, 2) telling someone ELSE to keep his obnoxious pie hole shut, and 3) questioning the statistics of ANYONE who actually made the effort to produce something more substantial than his own arrogant, elitist fantasies about how the rest of America is populated with Bufords and Billy Bobs who open fire on each other for no reason.

Do you have any conception of what an utter, blithering jackwagon you've made yourself appear to be in the space of less than five posts? On the other hand, just watching you has made me understand why you're so willing to believe OTHER people are too stupid to come in out of the rain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I DO carry a gun in my car, and while I certainly get angry at other drivers, I have never felt any desire whatsoever to offer them physical violence over it. So maybe the problem here isn't that the rest of America is too violent and immature to handle situations without blowing others away. Maybe the problem is that YOU are too immature to be trusted with a gun, and can't help but judge everyone else by your paltry standards.

I'm going to have to go with that theory, anyway, since you were so supremely unable to produce any evidence that Americans at large are hormonal psychopaths, you were forced to invent it out of your own fevered imaginings, which say much more about you than they do about the people you project them on.

 

[Shogun]

I'm a gun owning leftist. I agree with the spirit of the second amendment. People should own guns because A) they are fun and B) they can kill a motherfucker trying to break into your home.

and C) because they are fun.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I try not to waste the time of the police with my personal safety

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?

The police are about arresting criminals after they've violated the safety of other people. It's not so much that calling them is a waste of THEIR time as it is that calling them does jack shit to protect YOU, because YOU have already been victimized at that point. Which is not to say you shouldn't report crimes, but that thinking the police are going to protect you so effectively that you don't need to do anything to protect yourself is the attitude of someone in elementary school or institutionalized.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

The fact that you pulled the entire thing out of your ass negates the possibility of there being any point made, unless it's that you have a remarkable contempt for your fellow Americans.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought so too.

So what is your point exactly?

If the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding, what is your argument?

The point is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners never use them to stop a crime or use them in a violent encounter

Most Americans never need a gun. It is the fringe of the population that use their gun in either case

You mean the fringe that actually HAD TO use their RIGHT to protect liberty?

Yeah, that crazy fringe of society known as "crime victims", a group that most Americans - thankfully - never fall into.

 

[westwall]

Let's see here. 300 million people. 320 million firearms in their possession. 40,000 on averge killed by guns every year. That includes cops killing bad guys, good guys killing bad guys (twice as often as cops), bad guys killing good guys (sadly) and bad guys killing bad guys (the overwhelming majority of gun deaths) and of course accidents (around 900 per year).

62 million cars kill 40,000 as well, with the majority being drunk driving (25,000 on average)

800,000 doctors according to the AMA kill 100,000 people every year due to misdiagnosis, malpractice, faulty drug prescription and simple mistakes.

In other words you are far more likely to die at the hands of a doctor then you are from a firearm. And more to the point one million times a year a citizen saves his/her life or his/her families by having a gun when it was needed.

I don't think your qualified to render an opinion on this because you clearly know nothing of the subject.

When I want your opinion on my qualifications to render an opinion on anything, I will ask you for it. In the meantime, keep your God damn, obnoxious pie hole shut on the subject. Got it?

I question your statistics. As for your interpretation of those statistics, that goes without saying.

Yes, the guy wasting everyone's time with fairy tales to replace the evidence he can't produce should DEFINITELY feel justified in 1) defending his qualifications, 2) telling someone ELSE to keep his obnoxious pie hole shut, and 3) questioning the statistics of ANYONE who actually made the effort to produce something more substantial than his own arrogant, elitist fantasies about how the rest of America is populated with Bufords and Billy Bobs who open fire on each other for no reason.

Do you have any conception of what an utter, blithering jackwagon you've made yourself appear to be in the space of less than five posts? On the other hand, just watching you has made me understand why you're so willing to believe OTHER people are too stupid to come in out of the rain.

In George's defence he did in fact PM me for additional information. He's making an effort.

 

[007]

So if we all just armed ourselves to the teeth there'd less property crime?

Yeah, I believe that.

I also believe that crimes would become even more violent, but I don't doubt there might be less of it.

OK fuckwad... "you're a robber,"... and you have two houses to pick to invade and rob. One house you know the occupants have guns, the other you know they don't. Which house are you going to invade?

Yeah, now tell you wouldn't do that. Well, problem is, there's plenty of people that WILL. Who do you think THEY will invade given the same knowledge?

 

[CoolBreeze]

I for one have had a CCW permit from PA. for 20 years and have not had a reason to use one of my weapons. The main reason I have to permit is because you have to have one to transport a firearm in your vehicle, but I do carry quite regularly. Saying that, I do not frequent bars, if I want a beer I buy it and consume it at home, it's cheaper. When I go out for dinner and I am armed, I do not drink alcahol.

As I stated earlier, I have never had a reason to use one of my forearms but I want it near if I do need it.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

I for one have had a CCW permit from PA. for 20 years and have not had a reason to use one of my weapons. The main reason I have to permit is because you have to have one to transport a firearm in your vehicle, but I do carry quite regularly. Saying that, I do not frequent bars, if I want a beer I buy it and consume it at home, it's cheaper. When I go out for dinner and I am armed, I do not drink alcahol.

As I stated earlier, I have never had a reason to use one of my forearms but I want it near if I do need it.

An alcohol related indecent is a good way to lose your CCW and get thrown in jail. Good post.

 

[Mini 14]

ANY alcohol in your system at all invalidates your CCW in Alabama.

I carry everywhere I go, and usually have two on me. The nature of my business mandates it, though I carry away from work as well. If you see me, and I'm not drinking a beer or in a government building, I'm carrying at least one firearm.

I have never thought to pull one out and shoot an idiot on the road.

Maybe because I'm not in a hurry to get anywhere.

 

[rightwinger]

So if we all just armed ourselves to the teeth there'd less property crime?

Yeah, I believe that.

I also believe that crimes would become even more violent, but I don't doubt there might be less of it.

Well, evidence shows that, in fact, criminals ARE less likely to commit crimes when the victim is likely to be present if they believe the victim is likely to be armed. So the question now is, what are YOU basing your belief that "crimes would become even more violent" on?

The answer to every confronation is not "You have a gun so I will have a gun too and I will win"

If someone is robbing your store and you reach for your gun the chances are just as good that you will be shot. The best response is to hand him the money and ask if he would like fries with that. Smile and waive as he leaves

Then call the police and show them the video tape of the robber and the video from the parking lot showing the car he was driving. The police will pick him up at their leisure. Video equipment is proving to be a larger factor in fighting crime than armed clerks

 

[CoolBreeze]

Will a video tape restore your life if the criminal shoots you (the store clerk) if he (the criminal) thinks there was not enough money in the register and kills you?