Concealed Carry Permit

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by Alice

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

With all due respect, no, I don't think you can... but please feel free to post anything that is credible and based on data. The stats I refer to aren't survey results, or thesis opinions, or NRA dogma, or Greenpeace dogma – it's crime report data that is recorded by law enforcement agencies and compiled on a county, state, and national basis.

Originally Posted by Alice

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

No, I don't have stats on that specifically. All my stats show is that if you don't have a gun, you're less likely to get shot and/or killed than if you do. Period. So I guess that means if you only have a whistle, mace, or pepper spray, you're less likely to get shot and killed than if you have a gun. Any other assumptions would just be a guess or an opinion.

Originally Posted by Alice

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?

Actually, no. Many assailants in Canada are armed. Black market guns are not hard to come buy in Canada. Guns battles tend to be between people with guns: criminals versus cops, criminals versus criminals. In this country, we've added criminals versus citizens. Yes, there is the exception of the execution of unarmed citizens, but as the stats show, that is the exception, not the rule. So if you want to get into the gun battle game and increase your chances of dying by the gun, go get one.

Originally Posted by Alice

I treasure human life. Especially, my own.

I treasure human life too, yours and mine included. That's why I bother swimming against the tide and try to shoot down the myths so people can make informed decisions on personal safety.

I'm out (for real this time). Try to do your own homework, make your own choices, and be safe. Ignore the statistics at your own peril.

L4L

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

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...

Bad guy comes at me with a gun or knife.

I shoot the bad guy.

The bad guy falls down.

I win.

I then go buy some lotto tickets.

Only people who are still alive can legally play
the lottery in Texas.



What happened to old Bill?

He was shot and killed by a robber.

He didn't have a gun did he?

No he didn't believe in owning one.

Did he say anything before he died?

Yeah, poor fellow. His dying words were
don't worry I'll be alright, statistics show
that people don't die after getting shot
by a robber if they didn't have a gun
themselves.

[guest043013-2]

Statistics are great things. Given time, I can provide numbers to back up almost any engineering proposal I make. Same here.

1. Guns are designed to kill & destroy. This is not a good or bad thing. Hunting can allow us to bring home dinner, guns can kill the varmints out there in the world (think feral hogs), and yes, can stop the bad guys. Guns can also be used for bad purposes by bad guys. And finally, guns can accidentally cause bad outcomes, the 4 year old who plays with the unsecured gun and kills his 5 year old playmate.

2. Having a gun for defense can allow you to protect yourself. I think most of us think this is good. Unfortunately, guns are sometimes taken away from law abiding citizens and turned on them. Why, or how? Because they were not prepared to use the gun to stop the threat. Maybe the gun was not readily available, maybe they hesitated. (Great area for someone to post some stats on number of gunowners killed by an intruder with their own gun.)

3. Pulling a gun to protect yourself can escalate the violence as the attacker now feels he has no choice but to fire his weapon. (I think this is the area that many are refering to with regard to having a gun increases the likelihood of being shot.)

4. I think a lot of stats are being skewed today. The drug wars & gang wars have changed the playing field. These types of people don't care about body counts. In days of old, a robber just wanted the loot. If caught, the prison sentence for robbery was much shorter a murder while in the commission of a felony involving a firearm. (Hope I got that criminal charge right, or close, ShysterJon can help us out there.) Now days, they just don't care.

Also, there is so much bad guy shooting bad guy in these gang wars and battles for who owns the market for drug sales, that sure, both sides have a gun. In the end, sometimes it is hard to tell who that bad guy is. The sad part is when innocent bystanders, especially children, can caught in the crossfire.

Will carrying a gun help much in those cases? Not really, I don't think. Those guys go in with guns blazing so if you don't have your weapon already locked, loaded and in your hand with your finger on the trigger, you are probably a sitting duck.

[ElisabethWhispers]

When I was in my twenties, I was robbed at gunpoint and I had a gun underneath the car seat not five feet from where I was standing.

I had NO problem giving this young guy my jewelry and my purse in the hopes that he wouldn't shoot me. He was shaking really badly, young and scared. I was shaking really badly, young and scared.

I just wanted to be safe. Afterwards, even the police told me that I did the right thing and decades later, it's my belief that I did as well.

Because I have a farming background, my family was very accepting of guns. But I cannot imagine wanting to shoot someone and kill them because they stole a few dollars. I "get" the understanding behind that but it's not for me.

I've been ripped off in this business for several hundred dollars a few times and not once did I wish that I had a gun so that I could shoot the guy. I just didn't wish to lose the money. And I didn't like feeling violated and really try to not be in situations where this happens.

So sometimes when I read stuff like above where people are willing, or have, shot someone because of stealing like that, I understand it ... but that doesn't follow anything that I would do.

My inner feelings are one that I could shoot someone if threatened or especially if my family was threatened. But since I don't have a gun and I actually do not even fight, guess that I would be SOL if something were to happen.

Other than my personal business situation, I really try to never be in any type of situation where there would be a need for a gun.

I really liked the OP's little story, though. How cute!!!!!!!

Hugs,
Elisabeth

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispers

...
Other than my personal business situation, I really try to never be in any type of situation where there would be a need for a gun.
...
Hugs,
Elisabeth

I think that is the most important aspect to take away from this. For us guys, this is a hobby. Why would you want to put yourself in situations that require you to consider the need for a gun?

For the ladies, screening is important to minimize the risk to you. Sure, none of us can ever eliminate the risks. But going out and trying to place yourself in harm's way seems a bit foolish.

I know I may have come off harsh in some of what I have said here. People who know me also know I cherish every life. I don't want to see any person hurt or killed. I also don't ever want to be in a situation where I must make the decision, be it a split-second decision, to take another life. I believe my background would allow me to make the decision, in my younger days I was bigger, stronger, faster, quicker to carry out the decision perhaps. Now I am just a fat, old fart who couldn't out run a tortoise and thus must the flight option is gone and all I am left with is to fight.

[Sidewinder]

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.

Sorry to burst YOUR balloon, but:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.41. Protection Of One's Own Property

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

In other words, that shooting most certainly was and is fully legal in Texas.

[Sidewinder]

Some years ago, a friend of mine was robbed at gunpoint one night, by two scumbags. It scared the crap out of him, and he started carrying a pistol.

A few nights later, the scumbags tried it again, on another friend. The only problem was that this guy was ex-Army, ex-Special Forces, and a martial arts nut. As they started to depart, he caught the shooter squarely in the jaw with an expert spin kick (his term, as I recall). They ran. A few days later, the scumbag in question showed up at Brackenridge Hospital, on death's doorstep. His jaw was shattered. He'd been unable to eat or drink anything since that night.

In the belief that he was not going to make it, he confessed, and fingered his partner. Brackenridge managed to nurse him back to health. The confession and implication stood up, and, as this was the third major felony conviction for both of them, they both drew life without parole.

[guest043013-2]

Getting back to the original OP, here is an article about this story being a hoax.

http://thedamienzone.com/2012/01/27/...state-trooper/

Originally Posted by PT4ME

All I can find is a picture of the news article. Searches result in just the picture of the same. I have no idea how old it is, or if it's even true. BUT, it's still pretty damned funny!




You go Grandma!!

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Sorry to burst YOUR balloon, but:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.41. Protection Of One's Own Property

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

In other words, that shooting most certainly was and is fully legal in Texas.

You also need to read:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Emphasis added where appropriate.

So, let's recap. She was standing at a bus stop at night. That's "during the nighttime". Her purse was snatched, violently. That's robbery or theft, possibly aggravated (male vs. female). She saw the perp running away with her purse. That's "fleeing immediately after". He's out of hand-to-hand range, and he's male, she's female, which means that running after him and engaging him in hand-to-hand would probably put expose her to "a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury".

Translation: The shooting was absolutely justifiable and justified.

[74comet]

I have a friend who was DPD until he retired a few years ago. When I asked him about getting a side arm for my residence he immediately asked....."can you shot to kill?". My instantaneous response was "without a doubt". He told me that if there had been any hesitance in my reply he would have told me to forget about it. Since I have no qualms about protecting what is important to me he said go ahead and purchase one. But remember to practice safety at all times, and if anyone ever breaks into your home shoot the bastard and then put a toaster in his hand. You will never be charged as long as he has your property in his possession.

[jrewing]

WOW, I agree with some of you and some I don't, but you can be sure as a pistol packer, if you fuck with me I will pop you a brand new asshole in your forehead, not interested in wounding you, JR

[slowmover]

The bullshit is really getting deep here!

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by jrewing03

WOW, I agree with some of you and some I don't, but you can be sure as a pistol packer, if you fuck with me I will pop you a brand new asshole in your forehead, not interested in wounding you, JR

No, dude.

You aim for the center of mass. That's the chest, and the biggest part, with lots of things that are easily messed up by bullets.

If you aim for the forehead, and if you're an inch or two too high, you just part his hair a little, if you're an inch or two off left or right, you scare hell out of his ear.

You want to stop the threat.

Also note: key word is "STOP", not kill. Several decades ago, I briefly knew a chick who carried a .44 magnum. I asked her why she carried a portable cannon. She pointed to a heavily-muscled bouncer in the club we were in at the time, and said "I don't want to kill the guy, I want to *STOP* him. A smaller gun might kill him, eventually, but it might not STOP him fast enough."

[LazurusLong]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

This is a valid analogy, but not in the way that you think. Getting a drivers license and driving a car greatly increases your odds of getting injured or killed in a car accident. Same with getting a concealed permit and carrying a gun. Yes, a licensed driver is more likely to avoid an accident than an unlicensed driver (I'm assuming this), but a non-driver is much more likely to avoid an accident than a licensed driver.

L4L,

When you look at driving, if you decide you want to drive, you are choosing to engage in an extremely dangerous activity that by the very nature, means you will encounter all sorts of people the moment you turn the key and leave your own property and that continues until you return.

Nationwide, 33,808 people died in fatal crashes in the last year presented here:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1105.pdf

I don't have the stats but I seriously doubt that the number of armed home owners protecting their home and property and loved ones that were killed is a large number but rather quite small.

Lot of news lately talking about home invaders and burglars being killed by armed homeowners.

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice
My sister has recently started going to the shooting range. She takes her 3 kids with her. She wants to feel safe in her home and one of the best ways to do that is for her to have a gun handy if an intruder breaks in. With 4 people in her home being trained to use a gun properly they are safer than not having any protection at all.

I think that's insane. Her three kids are no threat to an intruder in a home invasion situation. If it becomes apparent that they are armed, they immediately become targets. Do you really want to paint a target on your kids?

Sounds like you're trying to instill logic on an armed intruder's thought process. once an armed intruder has entered a home I'm guessing they've brought that gun to force an end result, whether it is robbery, rape, or just killing.

You are making a rational argument that to the armed intruder that unarmed kids don't pose a threat. So the kids could never be used as witnesses? And unarmed kids would never be killed just for being there?

Are you willing to make a claim that no unarmed kid has ever been killed by an intruder where the adult(s) at home were unarmed and never presented a threat to the armed intruder?

Doubt it.

I'd rather have my wife and kid die trying to protect themself over being slaughtered like the sheeple so many out there want to bleat about everyone needing to become.

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.

And apparently my understanding of "render harmless" as taught by my first firearm's instructor years ago is vastly different than yours.

Here's a summary of what I was told.

In case of a shooting the number 1 thing the police hate is conflicting stories.
Period.

The last thing I'd ever want if I had to shoot someone is for them to start concocting some wild ass story about the event. They meant to do you harm, do you honestly believe they will be honest when the police ask for their statement?

Harmless means they can't lie, they can't try to sue you for shooting their ass when they tried to harm you, they can't go after you for medical care if they happen to survive. Harmless to me means one thing and one thing only and that is DEAD.

[AdventureAdams]

Originally Posted by pyramider

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

Eff that- they'd still get a severe pistol whipping. If they wanna play dirty, so will I.