Concealed Carry Permit

[Alice]

By the way, when I was in the hobby I never carried a gun with me to appointments.

I would have been in no position to load and shoot, for sure.

Screening, condoms, and your intuition are certainly your best bets for protecting yourself in this hobby!

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by Alice

...
The best advice I can give to anyone with a gun is not to point it unless they are ready to shoot it. Hesitation, I would guess, makes up a huge number of people being shot while armed. Although, the study didnt give details on that either.

I am not a gun lover. But my dad always taught me that if I pointed a gun at someone, I should be prepared to shoot & KILL the person I pointed the gun at.

In regards to any form of self-defense, his motto was that I should be prepared to take out the person who was attacking me. Whether hand-to-hand, knife, or whatever, fight like your life was on the line.

I know the general rules of law state you must measure your response with the threat, remove the threat and ask questions later.

I also am a firm believer that if you are going to own, handle and live with a weapon, you should be trained in how to use it safely, how to store it properly, and be prepared to use it. Otherwise, you have created a greater danger for you & your family. Between kids hurt when playing with a parent's gun and intruders shooting when they assumed an armed homeowner was going to shoot them, the dangers increase when weapons are not taken serious.

[Sierra977]

You never shoot to KILL. You only shoot to "stop the threat".

[Alice]

Strongly disagree, but different strokes...

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Alice

Strongly disagree, but different strokes...

You uh BadAss girl. Remind me never to piss you off. LOL

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by Alice

....

Screening, condoms, and your intuition are certainly your best bets for protecting yourself in this hobby!

Smartest comment in this thread so far. I do think that caustic sprays (pepper, mace, bear repellent, etc.) are good escape tools to have handy. No training required and nobody dies (so no legal issues).

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by bojulay

My dad started teaching me about firearms when I was about 6 years old.
I am very proficient with any firearm now, know how to use them and be
safe with them also.

The problem with firearms is the same problem with everything else out there.
There are a lot of stupid careless people in the world, what else is new.

I started even earlier than you did, and I agree that one of America's biggest issues is stupid people. Especially after watching the GOP debate tonight. OMG.

Originally Posted by bojulay

That has nothing to do with my right to own and/or carry a firearm.
If someone doesn't know how to handle one, or a situation involving
the use of one I'm sorry, wish I could have taught them a few things.

That still has nothing to do with my rights.

Please understand that I'm not suggesting that you don't or shouldn't have the right to own and carry a weapon. All I'm saying is that those who own and carry a gun are members of a statistical group that is more likely to get shot and killed than those who don't own and carry guns. It's not my opinion, it's data. I'm sure some people in that statistical group are well-trained and more likely to survive than others, but the fact is that most are not and that's why the stats are the way they are. Most are fooling themselves with a false sense of security and increasing their chances of getting shot and killed. I'm sure all of you think that you're in the 'I'm safer' category, but the reality is that most of you are in the 'more likely to get shot and killed' category.

Originally Posted by bojulay

Should we all stop driving automobiles because of all the stupid careless
drivers out there. Bet the stupid and careless would still be on the road.

Why does liberal thinking always seem to follow these lines.
(Because Joe Doe is stupid I should give up my rights to help
compensate for his lack of ability and/or intelligence)

It's not about liberal or republican. It's about statistics and what maximizes your odds. In that context, no matter what the NRA tells you, carrying a gun is the wrong choice. But if you want to carry one anyway, have at it.

Originally Posted by bojulay

Sorry don't buy into that. Same as the idea that rich people
are evil so lets all be poor together. Don't buy into that ether.

Agreed, but why do so many poor republicans think it's cool to protect the breaks for the corrupt rich ones? I don't get that.

Originally Posted by bojulay

False sense of security comes through lack of ability.
Another liberal idea, the elimination of personal responsibility.

False sense of security also comes from misinformation. If people had to sign a form when buying a gun that said they understood that their odds of getting shot and killed were increasing, it might open their eyes.

Enough for me on this one...

L4L

[bojulay]

So if someone is coming at you with a gun or knife you obviously wont
be armed yourself, but according to your statistics your chances will
be better. Yeah, think I would go find me some different statistics.

I'll bet that statistics show that more people die in automobile accidents
while wearing seat belts now, so we should stop wearing them.

Never mind that it's a law that you wear them, so nearly everyone dose.
That being the reason more people die while wearing them. Statistics can
be faulty, or bent to fit an agenda.

Ya'll can use your statistics to try and protect yourself if someone is trying
to shorten your life. Think I'll stick with my 40caliber smith and wesson.

Or run to Alice for help, if she pulls something out of her purse I'll bet
it wont be hand full of statistics.

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by Sierra977

You never shoot to KILL. You only shoot to "stop the threat".

I fully intend to stop the threat.

We are in Texas. We have the right to defend ourselves. If I think my life is in danger, I have the right to take appropriate action to defend myself. At the point that I feel appropriate action is to pull out a deadly weapon in the form of a gun, I have decided that killing the threat is appropriate. Never shoot to wound, always shoot to kill.

I know to some I may sound harsh, and I am not a gun-toting lunatic at all. But if you choose to arm yourself with a deadly weapon, you must be prepared to use it.

And if you teach or were taught anything different, you were done a disservice.

As a final note, if you kill your attacker, you just removed one witness against you.

[Alice]

BOJ.!!! Don't you dare run to me. I can imagine me searching for a gun in my purse. I would be a terrible hero!

I just don't agree with all of the statements made or studies conducted. That's all.

[Bob Soldios]

Originally Posted by Sierra977

You never shoot to KILL. You only shoot to "stop the threat".

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you accept that the treat stops once the threats pulse stops. Because of the difference in "aim for a shoulder, or arm, or kneecap them to disable them" versus getting solid center chest shots is considerable I believe the best theory is still:

Only draw down when you're ready to kill someone, then follow through.

[hd]

Seirra977

You never shoot to KILL. You only shoot to "stop the threat".

I believe when I took my CHL course many years ago, it was taught in class, and maybe not exact words in the handgun manual, that if you shoot to defend yourself, another person or property, you are to shoot to kill, as I said, maybe not those words are used but that's the intent.

[bojulay]

If you actually had to shoot someone you aim for center mass.
The threat stops when they are no longer trying to kill you.
Never in a court room would you want it to be that you were
trying to kill the person but only trying to stop the threat.

If you kept on shooting someone after the threat was over
things in a courtroom probably wont go your way.
Or there's a good chance that they wont.

Or you will have a greater chance of being indicted.
Not absolute but possible.

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by bojulay

If you actually had to shoot someone you aim for center mass.
The threat stops when they are no longer trying to kill you.
Never in a court room would you want it to be that you were
trying to kill the person but only trying to stop the threat.

If you kept on shooting someone after the threat was over
things in a courtroom probably wont go your way.
Or there's a good chance that they wont.

Or you will have a greater chance of being indicted.
Not absolute but possible.

I think in a Texas Courtrooom, a Texas Jury, and a Texas Grand Jury, if you tell them you were scared for your life and hell yes I intended to kill the SOB, (and the threat was obviously real, not made up), they will let you go. If the dead person was a known bad person with previous bad acts, they may actually shake your hand and thank you, offer to buy you beer.

Multiple shots on an assailant, you can probably argue that you were in a panic, you aren't a trained police officer, etc. Now, walk up to the assailant and put one between the eyes while the threat has been stopped and he is writhing on the ground, okay, that ain't gonna look too good.

I think most of us agree though, you shoot to make an impact, body shot, not trying to wing someone to stop the threat.

I know I sound like a heartless SOB, but understand, I don't own a gun, never plan to own a gun. Never plan to put myself in a situation where I have to purposely take another's life. I value life and the pursuit of life too much to ever look at another person's life lightly. But if placed in a position where I must choose between my life, my loved ones' lives, or an assailant, I will make that choice.

[blue3122]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Sorry to burst your balloon, but that story is bullshit. It is not legal to shoot a robber in the back as they run away from you and pose no more threat. No judge would get away with that ruling. If you have a link that proves otherwise, please publish... I'd love to follow up.

Evidently you are not familiar with Joe Horn. Look it up. He shot two would be robbers who were breaking into his neighbors house in a Houston suburb (I lived in Houston at the time.) The prosecutor brought him in front of the grand jury and he was no billed. (i.e. the grand jury told the prosecutor to f' off and freed Mr. Horn). while the story here may or may not be true, the JOE HORN story is 100% true and he was in less danger than the waitress in this story. In Texas there is something called "Right to Indictment" (it varies from state to state depending on the crime). This means anyone arrested has the right to have a grand jury indictment. Just like the right to an attorney, right to a jury trial, presumption of innocence, etc.. (we are on felonies here., not all crimes).