Concealed Carry Permit

[blue3122]

And yes, I have a CHL. I get called to go to some really strange places at all hours of the day or night and have even had flat tires in remote areas and had to wait hours for AAA or other help. I am an NRA member BUT I believe in gun education and registration. I take a gun safety course every 2 years and go to the range about every two months. I got my first shotgun (a 410 bolt action) at age 8. I have a military background also.

I completely disagree with the "only shoot to stop the person". If you have a firearm, your intent is to kill. period. A college buddy is head of the SVU in a large south Florida county. He was on narcotics early in his career. I asked him what he would do if someone came at him with a knife and he had his service weapon. His response was "Always aim center mass and stop firing when they go down and are rendered harmless." They taught them this because crackheads get shot and keep coming. (Also why most cops don't carry 38's any longer.)

[Sierra977]

Blue, your comprehension of your friend's words is severely lacking. Your buddy just told you he would shoot to stop the threat. The last thing you want to do after a shooting, self-defense or otherwise, is to get in front of a cop or jury with the words you "shot to kill". Let me emphasize again, in Texas you never say you "shot to kill" or "shot to wound" or even "shot to scare". To keep your ass out of prison the only words you will use are "shot to stop the threat". Ask your attorney.

[pyramider]

You quit firing when the clip is empty.

[blue3122]

Originally Posted by Sierra977

Blue, your comprehension of your friend's words is severely lacking. Your buddy just told you he would shoot to stop the threat. The last thing you want to do after a shooting, self-defense or otherwise, is to get in front of a cop or jury with the words you "shot to kill". Let me emphasize again, in Texas you never say you "shot to kill" or "shot to wound" or even "shot to scare". To keep your ass out of prison the only words you will use are "shot to stop the threat". Ask your attorney.

"Always aim center mass and stop firing when they go down and are rendered harmless."

I did not say that was what I would say to police or a DA or a jury. But in military and civilian weapons courses, they are pretty clear there is one reason to aim at someone. In my last CHL course, about 3 months ago, I think the instructor used the words "Deadly force" as in "When you aim your weapon, your intent is deadly force".

Of course in front of law enforcement/judge/jury/DA, "I was just trying to protect myself as best I could." should suffice.

[Sierra977]

Blue, how old are you? Do the words "rendered harmless" have meaning to you? Do you think that means killing someone? You need to spend more time listening to your friend. And, BTW, most CHL instructors are clueless when it comes to legal issues concerning firearms. And, if it makes any difference, my main hobby is not chasing ass but competitive shooting for the last thirty-five years.

Col. Cooper's Rules apply in any circumstance:
1. Every gun is always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you do not intend to destroy.
3. Make certain of your target and beyond.
4. Never let your finger touch the trigger till you are ready to discharge the weapon.

Live by them.

[blue3122]

Originally Posted by Sierra977

Blue, how old are you? Do the words "rendered harmless" have meaning to you? Do you think that means killing someone? You need to spend more time listening to your friend. And, BTW, most CHL instructors are clueless when it comes to legal issues concerning firearms. And, if it makes any difference, my main hobby is not chasing ass but competitive shooting for the last thirty-five years.

Col. Cooper's Rules apply in any circumstance:
1. Every gun is always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you do not intend to destroy.
3. Make certain of your target and beyond.
4. Never let your finger touch the trigger till you are ready to discharge the weapon.

Live by them.

The CHL instructor from my class in November was retired Texas Ranger with 25 years. I have taken multiple CHL courses, and refreshers, and I think all but one were taught by retired law enforcement. As to how old I am, I missed Vietnam by 2 years when i was in the Army. I think #2 in your list means "destroy". When you are talking about a human or animal, "destroy" is synonymous with "kill". but I am sure you can figure out a some semantics that are otherwise. You also got Cooper's 3 and 4 out of order which I am surprised about since you are an expert. No one comes out and says the word "kill" and that seems to bother you. If someone enters my home illegally, I intend to aim center mass and discharge my weapon until the subject is rendered harmless.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by 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.

The bottom line on the statistics is that if your assailant believes that you are armed–or if you show that you are armed–your assailant is more likely to shoot you. It's that simple. Is that too hard to understand?

Lots of innocent people get robbed and assaulted in Canada and the UK, but a lot fewer of them (per capita) get shot and killed, yet the population is not carrying guns. Hmmm... Those are just two examples.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by Alice

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

How can you not agree with recorded statistics? Isn't that like not agreeing with gravity?

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by tigercat

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.

Well put. I couldn't agree more. I choose to not carry a gun because I choose to maximize my chances of living. But there are many ways to injure and kill with and without a gun and if the decision needs to be made, it will be an easy decision for me.

[pyramider]

When the bad guys are unarmed then, and only then, will I put down my weapon.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

The bottom line on the statistics is that if your assailant believes that you are armed–or if you show that you are armed–your assailant is more likely to shoot you. It's that simple. Is that too hard to understand?

Lots of innocent people get robbed and assaulted in Canada and the UK, but a lot fewer of them (per capita) get shot and killed, yet the population is not carrying guns. Hmmm... Those are just two examples.

Go tell that to Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring.

Wish I had been sitting in that living room with a
Remington 870 when Tex Watson and the girls
stopped by. Bet it would of had a different ending.

Or how about any one of the girls Ted Bundy killed.

There's two examples for you. None of them were armed.

[Alice]

The bottom line on the statistics is that if your assailant believes that you are armed–or if you show that you are armed–your assailant is more likely to shoot you. It's that simple. Is that too hard to understand?

Yeah, sort of. For every study you can come up that states the above, I can show you one that states the total opposite.

Pulling out a can of mace or blowing a whistle might just piss them off enough to shoot you also. Stats on that?

Lots of innocent people get robbed and assaulted in Canada and the UK, but a lot fewer of them (per capita) get shot and killed, yet the population is not carrying guns. Hmmm... Those are just two examples.

If the assailants are included in the general population of those without guns then that makes perfect sense, don't you think?

It has been stated here that using just enough force to stop the threat is all that is needed. I don't know many women that can take a punch in the face from a large man without at the very least being stunned by it. I know we have our wonder woman types, but since we are talking statistics here, most women I know can't deliver a punch much less take one from a man trying to seriously hurt them.

I treasure human life. Especially, my own.

[cheatercheater]

If you have gotten to the point where you have drawn your weapon, you are at a point that you must be prepared to fire.
I will agree that your finger doesn't touch the trigger until the fatal necessary second.
Know and have a visual on your target. In other words don't shoot through a door. Don't shoot at a shadow moving in the dark. Your loved one could be behind the door or be that shadow. These are basic principles.
If an assailant enters my home, he is a risk to the safety of myself and my family.
I will be aiming for the chest. It's cold and callous, but in that split second time frame that the decision to pull the trigger is made, your first shot has to be precision.
I have heard the phrase that dead men don't talk. They can't paint a reasonable doubt scenario for a jury. Also I have never been through a course where you are taught to shoot to maim.
I do also agree to an extent that if you are armed your risk of being shot is multiplied. I would never try to pull a weapon on someone who already had theirs pointed at me. You have to make sane choices so you don't end up as a statistic.

[hd]

When the bad guys are unarmed then, and only then, will I put down my weapon

Pyramider, you'd still have the government to be worried about! Of course I didn't consider our officials as being bad guys, oh my!

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Go tell that to Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring.

Wish I had been sitting in that living room with a
Remington 870 when Tex Watson and the girls
stopped by. Bet it would of had a different ending.

Or how about any one of the girls Ted Bundy killed.

There's two examples for you. None of them were armed.

Yes, there are many, many individual examples where people might have fared better if they were armed. Just like there are many, many examples of people who win the lottery.

Statistically, however, most people who buy lottery tickets don't win, and more people who carry guns are shot and killed than those who don't carry guns. It's not a 'study' or a 'thesis', it's recorded data. There are many opinions why this is the case, but the underlying data is just data... it isn't subjective and it's clear.

It's good to know that all of the people here are comfortable knowing that they're the exception to the rule, and are indeed less likely to get shot because they carry. Ha ha ha... you should all start buying lottery tickets!

Oh, and by the way... in Canada and the UK, many of the criminals carry and have access to guns, but the general population isn't carrying... and yet fewer people (per capita) in those countries are shot and killed than in this country. That should make you at least think about it...