Carry?

[MsPrittiKitti]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I do not carry and I would take great offense as a home owner if someone carried a concealed weapon into MY home. I would assume that providers would feel the same way.

i have to agree!!
please leave it in the car if cumming to see me
if i visit you....PLEEEEASE have it out of sight.
if i see it..thats my sign to leave!!!

[theaustinescorts]

My father was a gun dealer. There were always loaded guns around our house. I started shooting shotguns and rifles by the time I was eight. I'm comfortable having loaded firearms around because they are familiar to me. I still shoot on ranges and own a number of guns, but I do not hunt anymore. I can't stand to see an animal killed.

However I'm not a fan of carrying them around everywhere. I know carriers are very safe people, and I have no problem with anyone carrying into my house if they are licensed. The reason is I just think it's an exaggeration. The odds of actually having to use a firearm in defense are so very remote that it's not realistic to go to the trouble of carrying around such a weighty item everywhere you go. Steel and lead bullets are heavy.

Furthermore I'm definitely opposed to police carrying. The odds of them ever really needed it are also very remote, and having it leads them to use it wrongly for intimidation or to kill someone unecessarily. Plenty of people have been blown away by police because they thought they were "reaching" for a gun when all they were reaching for was their wallets and didn't understand the police "commands."

I believe 95% of police shootings are totally unnecessary. No policeman should shoot unless he has actually been drawn down on. When I did government work guns were sometimes produced by malfactors, and I'm still here to talk about it. It's not necessary to blow some moron away just because they've produced a weapon they don't even know how to use, much less if they are just "reaching" for one. To me that's ridiculous. In the past I have been shot at, but never hit because the idiots shooting had no idea what they were doing. It takes real skill or incredible luck to hit someone with a firearm. Having bullets pass around you can be disconcerting, but it doesn't really harm you.

The police are permitted to always shoot first and ask questions later, and this is because so many of them are trigger-happy guys who like the idea of using that kind of force when they shouldn't. Say what you want, but they are allowed to get away with this over and over again because the laws and rules permit it and they always push these to the limit.

The police should carry a shotgun and an AR-15 in their cars, and only take them out when absolutely necessary. They shouldn't carry any gun or taser on their persons. If a policeman can't manage to handle the ordinary idiots they run into without such weapons they don't belong on the force, and that probably means 90% of police today shouldn't be there. A policeman should command respect by his demeanor alone, and if that doesn't work then physical force using his hands and maybe a night stick. Police today hide behind the use of tasers and handguns because most are wimps.

In contrast to this ordinary citizens who carry are very much more careful people.

When I did government work I sometimes had to carry, by necessity, and I would never carry anything as heavy as a model 1911. I was fond of small revolvers. Capacity isn't an issue in real gunfights. Real gunfights with handguns are usually two or three shot affairs at most and usually almost at arms reach. Practicing for more than that is nice but even less necessary in the real world.

I'm opposed to people using unnecesary lethal force because it shows them to be weak. A strong person will not jump to use lethal force when it's not really necessary.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

DTorchia,

yes, I'm sure there are countless examples one could give where having a handgun in their possession have saved their lives. And there are countless examples where having a handgun in the home has led to deaths of innocent people such as children. A few months ago in Cedar Park, a man killed his live-in girlfriend and then turned the gun on himself. Had there not been a gun in the house what might have happened is total speculation. In the best scenario, 2 lives would have been saved.

Again, I am not advocating anything. I simply said that I do not want anyone to come into my house with a gun -- I have looked at the FACTS and the possibility of an univited person breakng into my home are so small as to be uncountable. Once you eliminate that, the only thing that can happen when a gun enters the house is negative, in my opinion.

[austin_voy]

I left the piece in the safe today. I've decided (before reading the comments here) that it might frighten the provider if she saw the hardware. Even in this kind of environment, with checks and such, she can still get ripped off. And having the pants drop with a big "THUNK" can ruin the mood.

Speed, if I came in your house carrying, you wouldn't know it unless I told you. In fact, you'd better not be able to tell, because that would mean I'm technically in violation of the law. But since you've asked, I won't. I know people who know I carry and ask me not to, so I don't. And I've decided that there's an implicit "please don't carry" from all of the providers. Unless you ask to see my pistol, instead of just my gun (This is my rifle, this is my gun. One is for fighting, one is for fun.)

But I'll bet Britney didn't notice that I was following rule 2.

Rule 1: Never bring a knife to a gun fight
Rule 2: At least bring a knife

[austin_voy]

Originally Posted by Paven

On a lighter note...is that a gun in your pocket? or are you just happy to see me?

My favorite was from a National Lampoon issue that had covers of fake magazine, I think one was called "Gold Diggers". The cover had an article "If that's a roll of hundreds in your pocket I'm happy to see you"

They also had an issue of Nat Lamp where the cover promised "Spread Beaver" and it came in a plastic wrapper. The center did, in fact, have a spread beaver. He was on his back, legs out, big old flapper tail.

[theaustinescorts]

Until recently Barak Obama told everyone who asked him that he thought the government should prevent everyone from having guns. He's one of those people who believes only police should have them.

I'm the opposite. I trust ordinary citizens to carry guns because they've proven that when licensed that they will not misuse them. Whereas the police have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted to carry.

A few weeks ago some kid was shot dead by police when he was exiting a Big Lots he'd just burglarized. The police said he was carrying a gun, or produced a gun, and so they were permitted to drop him, which they NEVER FAIL to do when permitted.

To me it is extremely unlikely that this kid could have harmed anyone with the gun he had. He was out-gunned, and he prolly had no idea how to use it. I'm certain he never had the chance to draw on any of the police.

If I were a policeman there I'm certain I could have collared this punk without gunning him down. That the police over-reacted that way speaks as poorly about them as it does the little idiot they killed.

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Until recently Barak Obama told everyone who asked him that he thought the government should prevent everyone from having guns. He's one of those people who believes only police should have them.

I'm the opposite. I trust ordinary citizens to carry guns because they've proven that when licensed that they will not misuse them. Whereas the police have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted to carry.

A few weeks ago some kid was shot dead by police when he was exiting a Big Lots he'd just burglarized. The police said he was carrying a gun, or produced a gun, and so they were permitted to drop him, which they NEVER FAIL to do when permitted.

To me it is extremely unlikely that this kid could have harmed anyone with the gun he had. He was out-gunned, and he prolly had no idea how to use it. I'm certain he never had the chance to draw on any of the police.

If I were a policeman there I'm certain I could have collared this punk without gunning him down. That the police over-reacted that way speaks as poorly about them as it does the little idiot they killed.

I think we established through this thread that the providers who have chimed in would prefer for clients not to carry when coming to see them.
I further think we've established that there's alternatives for those who want to carry to and from their appointment such as leaving the weapon in your car while you go "play".

Digressing and starting to use this thread to second guess Police Officer's actions in shootings etc has nothing to do with the original topic. To be quite honest, if you've never been in a gunfight or faced a person armed with a deadly weapon then you don't have the experience to make an intelligent observation on the matter. Saying what you "would" do if faced in that situation is rarely what people actually wind up doing when confronted by a deadly threat.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by austin_voy

Speed, if I came in your house carrying, you wouldn't know it unless I told you. In fact, you'd better not be able to tell, because that would mean I'm technically in violation of the law. But since you've asked, I won't.

Voy, I fully understand your comments. I would hope that people with CHLs coming into my home would be considerate enough to ask me if I wanted a gun in my house. If I did somehow find out that someone came into my house with a concealed handgun, they would be asked to leave and not be invited back.

Last time I checked, about 2% of Texans 21 and over had CHLs. Not exactly sure what this stat means to everyone, but since people who legally carry concealed guns are such a minority for whatever reasons, those who do carry should try to take into account the possibility that very few of us want to be around people with guns. Just an opinion.

[theaustinescorts]

DTorchia,

If you'd read my contributions to this thread you would know that I have in fact been shot at, as well as had people produce "deadly weapons" on several occassions. I never returned fire because the idiots shooting at me never came close to actually hitting anything, including me. What the police face on our streets is usually the same.

It is our job as citizens to "second guess" whenever a public servant kills someone with their service weapon.

Here's another example from the archives of our city's police. A few years ago a group of Austin police surrounded a mentally ill housewife on the east side who was having a psychotic episode and was in her yard holding a kitchen knife.
What did this group of big, strong Austin police do? With all their strength and training did they together manage to disarm this harmless though ill housewife with the kitchen knife? Of course not. The fact that she was holding "a deadly weapon" was used as their excuse to gun her down...dead.

If you think that behavior such as that is honorable then you and I have very different views about what honor is. The police on that occasion behaved disgracefully and cowardly.

I began my commentary on how miserably police use their carried weapons because it points out how RESPONSIBLY licensed personal carry citizens have been by contrast.

In my experience hunters are ironically the biggest conservationists of all. As well, people like myself who grew up with guns all our lives are the LEAST LIKELY TO USE THEM AGAINST OTHERS. Unfortunately it's those who are actually afraid of guns who use them to kill when it's not necessary.

Any unnecessary taking of another life is wrong as far as I'm concerned, and it's not necessary to blow someone away just because they've produced a potential weapon they don't even know how to use.

[DRorchia]

TAE-"It is our job as citizens to "second guess" whenever a public servant kills someone with their service weapon"
And here I thought it was the job of the grand jury AFTER all the facts have been presented to them to make a decision as to whether an Officer acted within the law after using deadly force. Now I know it's actually YOUR job. Interesting.
I won't even bother to address your completely falsified account of what happened in Rosewood Courts on June 11th, 2002. I'll simply say this. A life was lost that day, and that's always tragic. A life was also saved that day, the life of Housing Authority Manager Diana Powell, the woman Sofia King tried to kill that day. You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about in this regard.
You were not at the scene, I seriously doubt you bothered to take the time to fill out a FOIA request to access the Police Reports regarding this incident. No, instead you simply choose to sit back and say they behaved disgracefully and cowardly. Yes, I can now certainly see how much more "honor" you possess than these cowardly Officers.
Speaking of police reports, any chance you could provide me with the police report #'s where you were shot at? I'm sure you filed a report? I'd like to read about it. Maybe I can learn from your experience so I'll know when not to shoot after someone's taking pot shots at me. I'm always looking to learn new tactics.
"it's not necessary to blow someone away just because they've produced a potential weapon they don't even know how to use".
Do you charge for this kind of training? I'm anxious to learn your skills of clairvoyance. So when someone points a gun or a knife at you, you instantly know whether or not that person "even knows how to use it"?! Simply amazing! Though I've been through extensive Jedi mindset training, I have yet to figure out when someone's pointing a gun at me whether they know how to use it or not. This information could potentially be worth millions and could lead to the end of all violence and warfare as we know it.
You Sir are obviously a man of great honor, great character and quite the one man tactical army to be able to tackle armed robbers single handed (well you said in your previous post you "could" if you wanted to) to duck incoming bullets without ever firing back and to face down armed adversaries without blinking an eye. Have you considered that these skills you possess could be going to waste given your current profession? I mean a Hollywood career or at least a book deal seem to be in order for you my dear Sir.

[theaustinescorts]

DTorchia,

I think you just lost credibility here seeking to defend the Sofia King shooting. If you really believe that a group of big, strong, well-trained and experienced police can't subdue one housewife with a kitchen knife without shooting her than you will believe anything...anything.

Police shootings do not to Grand Juries unless the District Attorney is seeking to prosecute the policeman involved for a crime.

Police shootings are investigated internally, by the shooters' buddies. And low and behold the circumstances always magically indicate that the shooter was acting within the law and rules.

This is an easy bar to meet because the law allows police to use deadly force whenever the police perceives that a "deadly weapon" has been produced. Any opportunities to disarm the suspect without the use of deadly force is never bothered to be addressed because it is not a requirement.

The law gives extraordinary latitude to police regarding their use of force, and I think it's that way by necessity.

My problem is that the police are misusing this authority.

Frankly you strike me as someone with no government experience. You have an idealized and unfounded view of our LE and military. You want to believe that they are heros, but you have no real world experience to base that on.

Take if from someone who's been there. The idiots that produce weapons can be managed 99% of the time without blowing them away. In the past police used to commonly shoot to wound, or would wait until the suspect actually got off a round IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMITTED IT. But today with standardized rigid training the police always shoot to kill reactively in each and every situation where a weapon of any kind, even a butter knife, is seen or believed to have been seen.

Why?

It's not because it's necessary.

It's because they can.

[DRorchia]

Well thanks for letting me know where my credibility with the entire board stands. Nice to know you speak for everyone. Since you brought up credibility, let's start with your complete lack of knowledge and quite frankly your ignorance on these issues. Please feel free to contact the Travis County District Attorney's Office to verify what I'm about to clue you in on Mr. "Government Service".
1. ALL Police shooting HAVE to be brought in front of a Grand Jury. It's automatic. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not the DA wants to prosecute. This law is designed so that the people DO have a checks and balances when it comes to Police use of deadly force. I reiterate, ALL Police shootings involving death or bodily injury go before the Grand Jury.
2. It is true that all shootings are also reviewed by the Internal Affairs unit. If this unit finds that the officer violated criminal law then they turn their findings over to the Officer Involved Crimes unit which then works hand in hand with the DA's office.
This however has NOTHING to do with the before mentioned necessity that all shootings go before the Grand Jury.
I have NO IDEA where you came up with the fact that "low and behold the circumstances always magically indicate that the shooter was acting within the law and rules". I can think of 3 APD Officers right off the top of my head that were FIRED for wrongful use of force involving shootings. Guess their "buddies" in Internal Affairs didn't cover those. Again, feel free to contact the Austin PD Internal Affairs unit and file a FIOA request which will get you access to these facts.

Quote:"Frankly you strike me as someone with no government experience. You have an idealized and unfounded view of our LE and military. You want to believe that they are heros, but you have no real world experience to base that on".

Well TAE, since we've established that you have absolutely NO FACTS to base your little rant on, that you were completely wrong about the Grand Jury and Internal Affairs facts, then Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what you think my experience level is.
I usually tolerate your pompous masquerading of someone that is somehow "in the know" in all matters. You throw around your education, "government experience" in the 80's etc as some kind of proof of your genius and expertise in everything from the economy to the military to guns, the hobby etc etc etc......
Sorry, this time you get your card pulled, plain and simple. You know NOT of what you speak on this topic and it painfully shows.
Now just for the record. I'm usually a nice guy but you start throwing around words like "cowards" etc about people you've never met, about a job you've never performed and about situations that you were not privy to and well, in my case at least you can expect to be called on it.

[DRorchia]

One more small little note. You may want to research what the necessary reactionary gap is when someone has a knife. Wait, I'll save you the work. It's 21 feet. That means, if a person with a drawn knife is within 21 feet of you and you do not have your weapon drawn, that person can stab you before you're able to draw your weapon and fire off a round. This has been demonstrated over and over and it's documented fact. It's been used in court room testimony as evidence all over the United States. Now, just so you don't mislead people on this board; Sophia King was attacking Diana Powell with a butcher knife, she had stabbed at her once and barely missed when Officer John Coffee shot her to save Mrs. Powell's life.
It's you who has no credibility here TAE. I see you conveniently ignored my request for you to provide proof of your claims that you've been shot at. The statements you have made clearly show that you have never been in a life and death encounter. You would know simple things such as the "21 foot rule" when it comes to edged weapons or that all Police shootings HAVE to go before a Grand Jury and the Officers are placed on Administrative duty UNTIL the Grand Jury issues a no bill (clears the officer).

[78704]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Tueller_Drill

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by 78704

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Tueller_Drill

This is pretty much standard training in most LE academies. It's usually conducted to show cadets how fast someone can close the distance with an edged weapon before they're able to react and draw.
If TAE had any experience at all, he would know that. He would also have known that the Officer that shot was a defensive tactics expert who had taught empty hand defensive tactics at the APD academy for several years. If that Officer shot, it was because there was no other choice, plain and simple.
Thanks for posting the link. I wasn't in the mood last night after TAE's antics.