Carry?

[governmentguru]

I have more firearms than I know what to do with. I carry everywhere it is legal. I usually carry a Sig P220 in a OWB with a sport or suit coat; you can't see it. I also have a daytimer that is a holster, and a cell phone case and camera case that are holsters. Hell in ATX you can walk around with a fanny pack on and CC in that, though I'm not a fanny pack kinda guy... Point is if you do it right nobody knows(including incalls and peoples homes), which is the point of concealed carry. I always laugh at the guys in 'tactical pants'; running around looking like Rambo is a certain 'print'.

I also have an HK MP5K, that while illegal to carry(though not to own if you do the right things) could be carried under a rain coat if you know what you're doing.

BTW, leaving it in your car or truck is a surefire way to put it in the hands of criminals. If you are going to do that make certain you have a quality gun safe that bolts to the floor.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by governmentguru

I have more firearms than I know what to do with. I carry everywhere it is legal. I usually carry a Sig P220 in a OWB with a sport or suit coat; you can't see it. I also have a daytimer that is a holster, and a cell phone case and camera case that are holsters. Hell in ATX you can walk around with a fanny pack on and CC in that, though I'm not a fanny pack kinda guy... Point is if you do it right nobody knows(including incalls and peoples homes), which is the point of concealed carry. I always laugh at the guys in 'tactical pants'; running around looking like Rambo is a certain 'print'.

I also have an HK MP5K, that while illegal to carry(though not to own if you do the right things) could be carried under a rain coat if you know what you're doing.

BTW, leaving it in your car or truck is a surefire way to put it in the hands of criminals. If you are going to do that make certain you have a quality gun safe that bolts to the floor.

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Couldn't care less what firepower you have.

[Joel Goodson]

Originally Posted by governmentguru

I have more firearms than I know what to do with. I carry everywhere it is legal. I usually carry a Sig P220 in a OWB with a sport or suit coat; you can't see it. I also have a daytimer that is a holster, and a cell phone case and camera case that are holsters. Hell in ATX you can walk around with a fanny pack on and CC in that, though I'm not a fanny pack kinda guy... Point is if you do it right nobody knows(including incalls and peoples homes), which is the point of concealed carry. I always laugh at the guys in 'tactical pants'; running around looking like Rambo is a certain 'print'.

I also have an HK MP5K, that while illegal to carry(though not to own if you do the right things) could be carried under a rain coat if you know what you're doing.

BTW, leaving it in your car or truck is a surefire way to put it in the hands of criminals. If you are going to do that make certain you have a quality gun safe that bolts to the floor.

If that's an NFA MP5K I bet its funner than fuk to mag dump! I got an old TV set I need to get rid of!

If its a sear gun I would love to see what it would do in my V53.

[Guest040616]

I have a permit but I rarely carry. If I felt the need to carry to a Provider's incall, I would not visit her in the first place!

[theaustinescorts]

DTorchia,

If it's standard practice for all police shootings in Travis Co. to go before a Grand Jury then that's news to me. That would be a very strange, bizarre use of a Grand Jury. Grand Juries usually hear the evidence presented to them by District Attornies to to rubber stamp their requests for indictments. What other possible evidence would any Grand Jury hear in a case involving a police shooting?

Regarding "internal affairs" investigations, surely you must be joking. As I've said the police in every city I've ever seen always close ranks. Perhaps I was exaggerating when I stated that in each case the shooting is ruled justified, but that's because the rules and laws permit such as justified in many cases that I and other experienced firearms users would not consider so.

My whole point is that training today is so extremely skewed toward protecting the police from any and all potential threats that the training EXAGGERATES them to a point of absurdity.

Of course a highly trained knife user can close and slash you within "21 feet"
[arbitrary on the face of it] in such and such a second...etc...with all this phoney pseudo-science the "acadamies" use today as SOP. You might swallow this kind of "training" as expert; I do not. Just because the military or LE is now trained in a certain way doesn't mean it's justified or correct. It only means that it's the way they prefer to do it for their own reasons.

But in cases like the Sofia King case we're talking about an HOUSEWIFE with a KITCHEN KNIFE.

I repeat these key elements: HOUSEWIFE KITCHEN-KNIFE

Anyone who really believes that police can't deal with that without gunning her down is gullible at best. I and a lot of other people on this board could have disarmed her without resorting to shooting her. That's just absurd.

Being intelligent and having common sense means that a person is able to
distinctions.

The government's use of "zero tolerance" and other standards are intended to take the ability to make distinctions and use judgement out of the hands of public servants and make them and the rest of use imprisoned in an absurd system unable to deal with realities [ever heard of Franz Kafka?].

I'm going to forget your adhominem [sp] attacks. They only illustrate the lack of maturity I'm criticizing your posts on this thread for.

[blondebustySabrina]

Sorry, but that would freak me out. I would definitely ask that you left it in the car.

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

DTorchia,

If it's standard practice for all police shootings in Travis Co. to go before a Grand Jury then that's news to me. That would be a very strange, bizarre use of a Grand Jury. Grand Juries usually hear the evidence presented to them by District Attornies to to rubber stamp their requests for indictments. What other possible evidence would any Grand Jury hear in a case involving a police shooting?

Well apparently there is still knowledge in this world that you have not yet gained. A simple call to the D.A.'s office as I had suggested would help clear up any confusion you may still have as to why all Police Shootings are presented to the Grand Jury in Travis County Texas.

Regarding "internal affairs" investigations, surely you must be joking. As I've said the police in every city I've ever seen always close ranks. Perhaps I was exaggerating when I stated that in each case the shooting is ruled justified, but that's because the rules and laws permit such as justified in many cases that I and other experienced firearms users would not consider so.

Let me clear up the matter of Police "cover-ups" and Police "closing ranks".
These things, when/if they happen (as I'm admitting they sometimes do) usually take place amongst the officers that were involved in an incident. They very rarely take place at the investigation level with Internal Affairs. This is ONE of the reasons most Police Officers don't think highly of I.A. Detectives. There is a very adversarial relationship oftentimes between patrol officers and I.A. Detectives. Most patrol officers feel that I.A. Detectives are out to hang as many officers as they can to advance up the proverbial ladder. Once a Detective has made the decision to become an Internal Affairs Detective he oftentimes finds that he has few friends left in the Department. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a fact and it tends to dispel your myth that I.A. Detectives will cover for an officer. In fact, it's not uncommon for some I.A. Detectives to use their positions to settle scores with officers they didn't like or had problems with when they themselves were Patrol Officers. It happens, believe me.

My whole point is that training today is so extremely skewed toward protecting the police from any and all potential threats that the training EXAGGERATES them to a point of absurdity.

Of course a highly trained knife user can close and slash you within "21 feet"
[arbitrary on the face of it] in such and such a second...etc...with all this phoney pseudo-science the "acadamies" use today as SOP. You might swallow this kind of "training" as expert; I do not. Just because the military or LE is now trained in a certain way doesn't mean it's justified or correct. It only means that it's the way they prefer to do it for their own reasons.

There's nothing "pseudo-science" about it. Even you and I can get together and see for ourselves who's right on this issue. It's simple. I give you a weapon adapted so that it will fire simmunition rounds. These rounds are similar to paintball, the tip is filled with a dye but they cycle through a duty pistol. I give you the pistol, we place it in a "level 3" security holster on a duty belt around your waist, the same way that most Police Officers carry. I then pace off 21 feet with a rubber knife. If I can stick you with the rubber knife before you're able to draw and effectively engage me by hitting me with at least one of the simmunition rounds in the pistol you have, then I think we can agree that it's not "pseudo-science" but a demonstrated fact. It can be our own little "myth-busters" experiment"

But in cases like the Sofia King case we're talking about an HOUSEWIFE with a KITCHEN KNIFE.

I repeat these key elements: HOUSEWIFE KITCHEN-KNIFE

I truly wish you would stop using the term "housewife". For one, it's an insult to many actual housewives out there. Sofia King was what is today referred to in a politically correct way as an Emotionally Disturbed Person.
She had serious mental health issues, and at the time of her shooting had been off her mental health medications for at least 3 days. She had attacked and assaulted other people in the past and many people in the Booker T. Washington housing complex and the Rosewood Courts Housing complex (both places she lived) had learned to fear her and try to avoid her when she was off her meds. She was a dangerously unpredictable woman and in all honesty, she should have been hospitalized permanently in a mental health institution. We're too good for that sort of thing in our country nowadays, we feel that no matter how mentally disturbed someone is, they have a "right" to live on their own. That's a topic for another discussion however. So please stop saying that she was simply a "housewife" while leaving out her psychosis. You're average housewife doesn't jump on top of an apartment manager and try to stab her with a butcher knife.

Anyone who really believes that police can't deal with that without gunning her down is gullible at best. I and a lot of other people on this board could have disarmed her without resorting to shooting her. That's just absurd.

And you call ME immature? You go around bragging what you and "others" on this board could have done with this armed woman. First off, I learned long ago not to speak for others. Anyone on this board is free to chime in on our discussion. No need for you to speak for them. As for your assertion that you could have disarmed her, again, it's not hard for us to replicate what happened at the scene using training aids such as rubber knives. Have you ever gotten in a physical altercation with an emotionally disturbed person that has been off their meds for 3 days and is having hallucinations? Ever hear of the (politically incorrect) term "retard strength"? I don't approve of that phrase but it came into existence for a reason. Just sayin..

Being intelligent and having common sense means that a person is able to
distinctions.

Being intelligent and having common sense means that you don't make assumptions about things you've never trained for yourself, about situations you've never personally been involved in (again, proof would be nice here, sorry I have a tough time taking your word for the exploits you claim to have been involved in) and about laws, policies and procedures that you're obviously unfamiliar with (as in Grand Jury procedures, Internal Affairs SOP's etc etc).

The government's use of "zero tolerance" and other standards are intended to take the ability to make distinctions and use judgement out of the hands of public servants and make them and the rest of use imprisoned in an absurd system unable to deal with realities [ever heard of Franz Kafka?].
Have you ever been to the Austin Police Academy? They offer a "Citizen's Police Academy" where ordinary citizens attend for several weeks (one or two nights a week) and where they get to see first hand how the Officers are trained, why certain training takes place, they're explained policies and procedures and even go on patrol for a shift or two with a Patrol Officer.
There's no such thing as "zero tolerance" when it comes to use of force as taught by the Austin Police Department. There's also a sign above the academy classroom door for each and every cadet to see each and every day they are in training. It reads simply: "Common sense and good Judgment". Bet that surprises you.

I'm going to forget your adhominem [sp] attacks. They only illustrate the lack of maturity I'm criticizing your posts on this thread for.

It's Christmas time so your generosity in this regard is appreciated. I will return the gift of forgiveness and forget your attacks on a damn good cop who's put his life on the line many times protecting the citizens of Austin. A cop who was frankly put through hell for almost 2 years as a result of this shooting. A man who's life and the lives of his family was threatened by gang members after his address was leaked, gang members who drove by his house continuously forcing him and his family to have to relocate. (you may want to read up on Sophia King's fondness of Crip gang members during her lifetime, I know that's sort of shocking for such a fine "Houswife huh?)

Merry Christmas TAE. I wish you the best for the holidays and a happy and prosperous New Year!

[austin_voy]

Every shooting goes to the grand jury, police or otherwise. Lots of times the DA will say something like "this looked like justifiable" and leave it at that. I have two friends who were no billed for shootings. In both cases they were told to appear in front of the jury (and advised to respectfully refuse to answer any questions), but never went inside.

[sixxbach]

I have never had to use mine but there is no better comfort knowing that I can protect my dwelling and be as close to an equal footing should some intruder break in my home. I have ankle biters they are very alert and would wake me and would have enough time to properly deal with someone who would have the gall to break in my home....

sixx

[Slotgoop]

Hey, good for you using fact, though my post was not specifically directed at any one poster on this thread, and more of a general statement around the emotion this issue tends to generate. I don't "carry" in my home, have plenty of other options there, so I think that part of the rebuttal is irrelevant since anyone can keep a firearm in their house without any training (not recommended) and with no criminal background check or filing of fingerprints as required by a Texas CHL permit. When I said fact, I was referring to the crime rate statistics required by the concealed carry statute that DPS must keep (a concession when the concealed carry permit bill was passed to those that opposed it) that compares crime rates for specific criminal acts committed by CHL holders versus the population at large. Those statistics show that CHL holders are considerably more law abiding than the population at large. I believe that is due in part to the FBI criminal background checked performed on all applicants, the fact their fingerprints are on file, and the fact that the training drills into your head that if you pull the trigger, or even brandish your weapon inappropriately, it will be a life changing event in terms of emotional and dollar costs to you. It is a big responsibility not to be taken lightly when you exercise the rights granted by statute 30.06. In any case, I think the large majority of the TX population is uneducated when it comes to legal concealed carry of a firearm, the process and training involved to do so, and the general character of those that chose to do so legally. The fact that our own legislators allow legal carriers of firearms to enter the capitol building while they are in session is a testimony to the integrity of the process those same lawmakers entrusted DPS to build.

I am glad that you are not against additional restrictions because I also think one of the big problems with present society is others telling me what I need or don't. That applies to both sides of the political spectrum and all extremes of various religious faiths. We all have our own "facts" to base our decisions on, mine are quite different than yours. But at least there's some logic to both of our points of view.

One other point of note, I would never bring a firearm into anyones residence without letting them know and asking permission first. That is just plain common respect and courtesy I would pay to anyone, old friend or new.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Slotgoop, my decision is based purely on fact, with no emotion involved at all. When is the last time that you heard about a totally random break-in and robbery/killing of homeowners in the Austin area? I have lived in the Austin area for almost 20 years and can't think of one instance. By random I mean there was no connection between the homeowners and the criminals. So once I eliminate the probability of criminals entering your home to do you harm, I take the next step and say I don't want ANYONE in my home with a gun, CHL or not. I fully agree with you that crimes by CHL holders is VERY low, but not zero.

I also find your last statement interesting in that it is my opinion that CHL holders base their decision on carrying a gun on emotion and not facts. Fact is that random break-ins of homes is close to zero, so you don't need a gun in the home. Fact is that car-jackings are close to zero so you don't need a gun in the car. Fact is that in most areas of Austin and the surrounding cities/towns, the rate of violent crimes is barely measurable, so you don't need a gun for protection of yourself.

Yes, crime is certainly possible at any time in any place, and I certainly am not campaigning for any gun restrictions. If you or anyone else chooses to have a weapon at home, in the car, or on your person, please do so.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Slotgoop,

the only part of your statment that I personally disagree with is when you say that training for a CHL drills things into your head. In a 10 hour day, some of which is taken up by firing of the weapon, lunch, and breaks, I doubt there is much drilling.

As for going into someone's home with a concealed handgun without the owner's permission -- this is one area that I totally disagree with the laws regarding CHLs. I, as a home owner, am required to either post a sign or tell a person entering MY home that handguns are not welcome. I believe the burden should be on the CHL holder to inform me that he/she is carrying and ask for my permission to enter with the concealed weapon. Again, since only about 2% of eligible Texans have CHLs, the requirements should be stacked in favor of those that do not have CHLs.
I never argued with your statement about CHL holders being more law-abiding than the population as a whole. I would certainly expect that, just as I would expect other certain sub-segments of the population to be more law-abiding than others.

[theaustinescorts]

IMHO we would have a safer and more just society if more people safely possessed firearms in their homes, as our founding fathers assumed.

The vast majority of us who rely on them to deter intruders or defend ourselves against them should never be denied that vital right of self defense just because a few idiots have accidents or misuse them around the house.

Has anyone ever heard of the "Darwin Award?"

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

IMHO we would have a safer and more just society if more people safely possessed firearms in their homes, as our founding fathers assumed.

The vast majority of us who rely on them to deter intruders or defend ourselves against them should never be denied that vital right of self defense just because a few idiots have accidents or misuse them around the house.

Has anyone ever heard of the "Darwin Award?"

Agree and disagree. I don't think anyone has ever said that people do not have the right to possess a firearem in their home. But how many times have you relied on them to deter intruders or defend yourself against them? As I've said, I've lived in the Austin area for close to 20 years and can't remember one time where a home was randomly invaded, although it might have happened. But I can cite at least one incident in the Austin area where people were killed in the home by their own guns. Probably more if I took the time to research it.

I choose not to have a gun in my home because I KNOW that the liklihood of people randomly choosing my home to break into while I am there and doing harm to me and/or my family is as close to zero as can possibly be. Can't get much safer than that!!

I can't speak for you, but the facts remain the same. If you think having a gun in your home will keep someone from breaking into it with the intent of harming you, you are wrong. Criminals have no idea which homes do and do not have guns in them. And unless that gun is right by your side when the criminals break into your home, which is doubtful, you are cooked.

BTW, studies have shown that the most effective way to keep criminals out of your home is to put up a sign from a home monitoring company stating the home is protected by them. Possibly putting up a sign stating "I own a gun and will use it" could be just as effective.

[theaustinescorts]

I disagree that the chances of a home invasion are rare based on my personal experience. When I lived on Greystone in the 1980s a girl in the unit next to mine was repeatedly raped and strangled [though not killed] by an intruder. When I lived on Riverside a year earlier there were three homicides in or near the victims' apartments within a two week period. Four years ago a friend of mine in Castle Hills [San Antonio] was staying with his elderly parents when three thugs with baseball bats entered their home, tied all three with duck tape, and proceeded to break my friend's arm with a bat. In a subsequent home invasion weeks later the same guys killed someone in Corpus.

I will never let any of those things happen to me, and I'm glad many other people feel the same.

The experiences of careless or immature people who are responsible for gun deaths from accident or crimes passionale should have no bearing on whether normal people should have the right to protect themselves. They should however all be honored with a Darwin Award for having done themselves in by the very means so carefully designed to protect them.

[theaustinescorts]

www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/ofckilled.htm

Since 1875 there have been 10 policemen or policewomen killed in traffic accidents.

In 1913 and 1915 two policemen were shot dead, both African-American. One was killed by another law enforcement officer, the other in another fight related to a racial issue.

One policemen was killed by the UT sniper Charles Whitman.

I think that leaves four policeman in 135 years killed in gunfights with suspects.

The last time this happend was when Ralph Ablanedo was killed in 1979, except for the Austin Park Policeman who was killed in 2000. Oh and let's not forget that in 1928 the 67 year old Chief of Police was shot to death, but that was not exactly an encounter with an armed citizen. That was more like an assassination.

It appears the risk of death from simple traffic accidents far exceeds any risk of death from encountering a citizen with a deadly weapon.

How many citizens may have been killed by police during this 135 years is, well, a much, much larger number.

go figure