Woman charged for trying to shoot tires of shoplifter

[Muhammed]

I know that what she did was really freaking stupid,

ChrisL, you don't know what she did, nor do I.

 

[ChrisL]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

It's idiots like you who make responsible gun owners like me cringe. Kill a shoplifter? Since when did shoplifting warrant the death penalty? You are the type of person who should relinquish their right to bear arms, seriously. I question your mental capacity to exercise good judgment and I suspect you have some underlying psychological issues that should prohibit your access to firearms. Kill a shoplifter? You are one fucked up individual and you should really try thinking before you ever post again, at the very least before you post on topics such as this. You add nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that you hinder the afore mentioned argument.


As to the woman in the story, she's a fucking idiot just like Likkmee. Just like Likkmee, she adds nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that she hinders the argument. At the very least she should lose her CCW. Permanently.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime. Then she should be locked up and lose her rights.

Do you also think we should apply these standards to drivers? Obviously, there are a LOT of stupid drivers on the roadways who cause a lot of deaths every year.

She exercised extremely poor judgment discharging her firearm the way she did. Hands down, no arguing otherwise. for that reason and that alone she should lose her CCW. I don't necessarily think she should lose her right to gun ownership, I would leave that to local authorities. I will say that I wouldn't want to be her neighbor...

As for drivers...

DUI, one should cost a driver their license for a minimum of one year. Two and it's all over, take the bus. Texting, same. Stupid, well, let's just say I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to taking them off the road...

Well, I don't know if exercising "poor judgment" is good enough reason to take away any rights from an individual. You might say those who voted for Obama exercised poor judgment? OTOH, liberals probably think those who voted for the opposition to have poor judgment. Lol. Kidding, but really, is that a good enough reason to allow our government to limit or take away any of our constitutionally guaranteed rights? If she had deliberately used her gun to intimidate or harm a person, I would agree, but in cases of "bad judgment" I'm not so on board. I see nothing wrong with at least giving a person the choice in such a situation of taking a mandatory safety class or else then lose the "right to carry."

 

[Derideo_Te]

One thing that vast majority of all criminals have in common is stupidity. She fits the profile and she has just committed a crime with a lethal weapon.

Whose profile? And where do you draw a line, and who is making these decisions regarding our natural rights? What if a person suffered from depression 25 years ago?

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

 

[ChrisL]

I know that what she did was really freaking stupid,

ChrisL, you don't know what she did, nor do I.

Well, I know this much. She discharged her weapon in a crowded parking lot, or at least those are the allegations and what we are discussing. If she did or didn't is kind of a moot point. I'm looking at the big picture here, when a person actually DOES do something "stupid" but yet not really "criminal."

 

[ChrisL]

Whose profile? And where do you draw a line, and who is making these decisions regarding our natural rights? What if a person suffered from depression 25 years ago?

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

Oh, so you think I could physically fight off an attacker, but that he could easily disarm me? Hmm.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

It's idiots like you who make responsible gun owners like me cringe. Kill a shoplifter? Since when did shoplifting warrant the death penalty? You are the type of person who should relinquish their right to bear arms, seriously. I question your mental capacity to exercise good judgment and I suspect you have some underlying psychological issues that should prohibit your access to firearms. Kill a shoplifter? You are one fucked up individual and you should really try thinking before you ever post again, at the very least before you post on topics such as this. You add nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that you hinder the afore mentioned argument.


As to the woman in the story, she's a fucking idiot just like Likkmee. Just like Likkmee, she adds nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that she hinders the argument. At the very least she should lose her CCW. Permanently.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime. Then she should be locked up and lose her rights.

Do you also think we should apply these standards to drivers? Obviously, there are a LOT of stupid drivers on the roadways who cause a lot of deaths every year.

The purpose of a vehicle is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Your drivers license is a privilege that the state can revoke for the rest of your life if it considers you to be a danger to others on the road because you did stupid things like drink and drive.

This stupid woman exposed herself as a danger to others and therefore forfeited her right to own and carry a gun.

The purpose of a gun is to protect yourself. Most acts of "self defense" the victim never fires a shot.

Now you are repeating the nonsense that the Gun Fetishists spout. Talk to some cops if you want to know what actually happens in real life.

 

[ChrisL]

Whose profile? And where do you draw a line, and who is making these decisions regarding our natural rights? What if a person suffered from depression 25 years ago?

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This woman understood little to nothing about guns by her actions in trying to shoot out the tires. Yes, people brought up the possibility of a ricochet if a rim was hit, but the most likely one would be from a ricochet hitting the pavement when she misses, and having it bounce up and hit someone. Mythbusters actually did a show where they demonstrated ricochets doing that, as well as showed how hard it is to actually hit a car tire on a moving vehicle.

I say treat her like a drunk driver, and revoke her CCL for a year, and after that year, if she can pass a basic test and show that she understands when to pull her weapon and when not to, then give it back.

If she does it again? She can still have her weapons, just not be able to carry them concealed. Revoke her CCL permanently.

 

[ogibillm]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

It's idiots like you who make responsible gun owners like me cringe. Kill a shoplifter? Since when did shoplifting warrant the death penalty? You are the type of person who should relinquish their right to bear arms, seriously. I question your mental capacity to exercise good judgment and I suspect you have some underlying psychological issues that should prohibit your access to firearms. Kill a shoplifter? You are one fucked up individual and you should really try thinking before you ever post again, at the very least before you post on topics such as this. You add nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that you hinder the afore mentioned argument.


As to the woman in the story, she's a fucking idiot just like Likkmee. Just like Likkmee, she adds nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that she hinders the argument. At the very least she should lose her CCW. Permanently.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime. Then she should be locked up and lose her rights.

Do you also think we should apply these standards to drivers? Obviously, there are a LOT of stupid drivers on the roadways who cause a lot of deaths every year.

firing her weapon like that was a violent crime.

 

[ChrisL]

This woman understood little to nothing about guns by her actions in trying to shoot out the tires. Yes, people brought up the possibility of a ricochet if a rim was hit, but the most likely one would be from a ricochet hitting the pavement when she misses, and having it bounce up and hit someone. Mythbusters actually did a show where they demonstrated ricochets doing that, as well as showed how hard it is to actually hit a car tire on a moving vehicle.

I say treat her like a drunk driver, and revoke her CCL for a year, and after that year, if she can pass a basic test and show that she understands when to pull her weapon and when not to, then give it back.

If she does it again? She can still have her weapons, just not be able to carry them concealed. Revoke her CCL permanently.

I think that sounds quite reasonable.

 

[ChrisL]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

It's idiots like you who make responsible gun owners like me cringe. Kill a shoplifter? Since when did shoplifting warrant the death penalty? You are the type of person who should relinquish their right to bear arms, seriously. I question your mental capacity to exercise good judgment and I suspect you have some underlying psychological issues that should prohibit your access to firearms. Kill a shoplifter? You are one fucked up individual and you should really try thinking before you ever post again, at the very least before you post on topics such as this. You add nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that you hinder the afore mentioned argument.


As to the woman in the story, she's a fucking idiot just like Likkmee. Just like Likkmee, she adds nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that she hinders the argument. At the very least she should lose her CCW. Permanently.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime. Then she should be locked up and lose her rights.

Do you also think we should apply these standards to drivers? Obviously, there are a LOT of stupid drivers on the roadways who cause a lot of deaths every year.

The purpose of a vehicle is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Your drivers license is a privilege that the state can revoke for the rest of your life if it considers you to be a danger to others on the road because you did stupid things like drink and drive.

This stupid woman exposed herself as a danger to others and therefore forfeited her right to own and carry a gun.

The purpose of a gun is to protect yourself. Most acts of "self defense" the victim never fires a shot.

Now you are repeating the nonsense that the Gun Fetishists spout. Talk to some cops if you want to know what actually happens in real life.

I'll have you know that I watch COPS and the First 48.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

Oh, so you think I could physically fight off an attacker, but that he could easily disarm me? Hmm.

Yes, because you are focused on a lump of metal that will only "defend" you if your attacker is more than 20' away and you can see them coming at you and you have practiced drawing, aiming and firing in less time than it takes them to reach you. Trained cops know that they can't do it in less than 20' and they have to qualify on a shooting range twice a year.

On the other hand if your attacker jumps you from behind your self defense class training tells you to drive your heel down into his foot with all your weight behind it you will inflict enough pain to break out of his grasp and be able to run faster than he can with an injured foot. And that is just one technique out of many that you will be taught to handle all kinds of different situations where your gun would be useless.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

Oh, so you think I could physically fight off an attacker, but that he could easily disarm me? Hmm.

Yes, because you are focused on a lump of metal that will only "defend" you if your attacker is more than 20' away and you can see them coming at you and you have practiced drawing, aiming and firing in less time than it takes them to reach you. Trained cops know that they can't do it in less than 20' and they have to qualify on a shooting range twice a year.

On the other hand if your attacker jumps you from behind your self defense class training tells you to drive your heel down into his foot with all your weight behind it you will inflict enough pain to break out of his grasp and be able to run faster than he can with an injured foot. And that is just one technique out of many that you will be taught to handle all kinds of different situations where your gun would be useless.

My favorite trick when someone grabs me from behind? If they grab me with their right arm, I use my left arm to grab their right elbow, and then just drop to my right knee (basic judo throw), and then, when they land on their back with their arm still in your grip, ram a fist straight into their armpit as hard as you can.

Guaranteed to be able to get away after that, and if they come after you? They've only got 1 arm to fight with.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

You don't "wrestle" with an attacker. You hit them as hard you can as soon as your can in their most vulnerable areas. Your ex would be writhing in pain on the ground if you kicked him in the shins or the groin. He would be blinded if you jabbed your fingers in his eyes. He would be stunned if your hit him in the mouth with your keys or rammed your elbow into his solar plexus.

You don't "fight fair" with an attacker. You injure them as quickly and as painfully as you can as quickly as you can.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's idiots like you who make responsible gun owners like me cringe. Kill a shoplifter? Since when did shoplifting warrant the death penalty? You are the type of person who should relinquish their right to bear arms, seriously. I question your mental capacity to exercise good judgment and I suspect you have some underlying psychological issues that should prohibit your access to firearms. Kill a shoplifter? You are one fucked up individual and you should really try thinking before you ever post again, at the very least before you post on topics such as this. You add nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that you hinder the afore mentioned argument.


As to the woman in the story, she's a fucking idiot just like Likkmee. Just like Likkmee, she adds nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that she hinders the argument. At the very least she should lose her CCW. Permanently.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime. Then she should be locked up and lose her rights.

Do you also think we should apply these standards to drivers? Obviously, there are a LOT of stupid drivers on the roadways who cause a lot of deaths every year.

The purpose of a vehicle is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Your drivers license is a privilege that the state can revoke for the rest of your life if it considers you to be a danger to others on the road because you did stupid things like drink and drive.

This stupid woman exposed herself as a danger to others and therefore forfeited her right to own and carry a gun.

The purpose of a gun is to protect yourself. Most acts of "self defense" the victim never fires a shot.

Now you are repeating the nonsense that the Gun Fetishists spout. Talk to some cops if you want to know what actually happens in real life.

I'll have you know that I watch COPS and the First 48.

Talk to a cop one on one. Watching TV is not going to tell you about what to look out for.

 

[williepete]

Is she what some call a "responsible gun owner"?

Nope.

And you had to ask.

 

[Derideo_Te]

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

Oh, so you think I could physically fight off an attacker, but that he could easily disarm me? Hmm.

Yes, because you are focused on a lump of metal that will only "defend" you if your attacker is more than 20' away and you can see them coming at you and you have practiced drawing, aiming and firing in less time than it takes them to reach you. Trained cops know that they can't do it in less than 20' and they have to qualify on a shooting range twice a year.

On the other hand if your attacker jumps you from behind your self defense class training tells you to drive your heel down into his foot with all your weight behind it you will inflict enough pain to break out of his grasp and be able to run faster than he can with an injured foot. And that is just one technique out of many that you will be taught to handle all kinds of different situations where your gun would be useless.

My favorite trick when someone grabs me from behind? If they grab me with their right arm, I use my left arm to grab their right elbow, and then just drop to my right knee (basic judo throw), and then, when they land on their back with their arm still in your grip, ram a fist straight into their armpit as hard as you can.

Guaranteed to be able to get away after that, and if they come after you? They've only got 1 arm to fight with.

Good move. Use their weight against them and hit them in the vulnerable areas.

 

[hjmick]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

It's idiots like you who make responsible gun owners like me cringe. Kill a shoplifter? Since when did shoplifting warrant the death penalty? You are the type of person who should relinquish their right to bear arms, seriously. I question your mental capacity to exercise good judgment and I suspect you have some underlying psychological issues that should prohibit your access to firearms. Kill a shoplifter? You are one fucked up individual and you should really try thinking before you ever post again, at the very least before you post on topics such as this. You add nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that you hinder the afore mentioned argument.


As to the woman in the story, she's a fucking idiot just like Likkmee. Just like Likkmee, she adds nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that she hinders the argument. At the very least she should lose her CCW. Permanently.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime. Then she should be locked up and lose her rights.

Do you also think we should apply these standards to drivers? Obviously, there are a LOT of stupid drivers on the roadways who cause a lot of deaths every year.

She exercised extremely poor judgment discharging her firearm the way she did. Hands down, no arguing otherwise. for that reason and that alone she should lose her CCW. I don't necessarily think she should lose her right to gun ownership, I would leave that to local authorities. I will say that I wouldn't want to be her neighbor...

As for drivers...

DUI, one should cost a driver their license for a minimum of one year. Two and it's all over, take the bus. Texting, same. Stupid, well, let's just say I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to taking them off the road...

Well, I don't know if exercising "poor judgment" is good enough reason to take away any rights from an individual. You might say those who voted for Obama exercised poor judgment? OTOH, liberals probably think those who voted for the opposition to have poor judgment. Lol. Kidding, but really, is that a good enough reason to allow our government to limit or take away any of our constitutionally guaranteed rights? If she had deliberately used her gun to intimidate or harm a person, I would agree, but in cases of "bad judgment" I'm not so on board. I see nothing wrong with at least giving a person the choice in such a situation of taking a mandatory safety class or else then lose the "right to carry."

I understand, truly.

The thing is, I'm a gun owner. I believe in our right to bear arms, I believe in our right to own guns, I believe in our right to carry, open or concealed (though I myself have never felt the need). But I am sick and tired of nut jobs shooting up schools and making those of us defending these rights seem like extremists. Then, when an otherwise seemingly normal, responsible (?) gun owner goes off half cocked and starts shooting at shoplifters, in a car, in a Home Depot parking lot? Well, it just makes things even more difficult. Perhaps my view on this case is a knee jerk reaction coming at the end of a long, frustrating day at work dealing with, well, idiots... I doubt it, but maybe... Nope. Sorry. This woman, aged 46, made a bad call, exercised extremely poor judgment, that no one was injured is the result of luck, IMO. I can't help it, she needs to relinquish her CCW.

 

[westwall]

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

Oh, so you think I could physically fight off an attacker, but that he could easily disarm me? Hmm.

Yes, because you are focused on a lump of metal that will only "defend" you if your attacker is more than 20' away and you can see them coming at you and you have practiced drawing, aiming and firing in less time than it takes them to reach you. Trained cops know that they can't do it in less than 20' and they have to qualify on a shooting range twice a year.

On the other hand if your attacker jumps you from behind your self defense class training tells you to drive your heel down into his foot with all your weight behind it you will inflict enough pain to break out of his grasp and be able to run faster than he can with an injured foot. And that is just one technique out of many that you will be taught to handle all kinds of different situations where your gun would be useless.

I agree. ALL cops should be disarmed immediately. Same go's for the Secret Service. Those clowns could never get a weapon out to protect the POTUS anyone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

US woman charged for shooting at fleeing shoplifter

A perfect example of a CCW person playing Charles Bronson in a busy parking lot, and putting bystanders at risk.

Is she what some call a "responsible gun owner"?

It illustrates the fact that carrying concealed firearms is for one's lawful self-defense, not to act as 'law enforcement.'