Arizona’s Legislature is debating a bill that would allow someone with a concealed-weapons permit — limited to those 21 and older — to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities, the New York Times reported. The bill was prompted by recent university shootings but was originally intended to include K-12 schools. “I feel like our kindergartners are sitting there like sitting ducks,†said state Sen. Karen S. Johnson, the bill’s sponsor. Utah is the only state that now expressly allows people with concealed-weapon permits to carry guns on college campuses, but more than a dozen states are considering such legislation, the Times reported. Opponents argue that allowing armed students on campuses would create more danger than it would prevent.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
380 Comments
No, of course not.
Sigh, you just love to see a shouting match, don’t you! This topic was ran into the ground the last two times something like this was brought up. Statistical speaking, this is the lopsided one legged man in the butt kicking contest. One side can point to the times that an armed citizen has stopped a shooting spree and the other side counters with how repugnant the idea of having guns in school is. Both sides score and both side lose. You are still in more danger of being stuck by lightning than being a victim of gun violence. Every day Schools are open and the day ends without an incident. That does not make the news and at large no one hits their knees and thanks God that their child did not die from being shot in School.
Could allowing CCP owner to have their weapon with them while on School ground stop such things, the simply answer it yes. There is enough static to show it has been so in the past, but in the same vane statistically speaking compared to the number of days where nothing happens is it warranted? It is more happenstance then actual threat level.
Problem i see is that most college kids are under 21
Writerdog
Come on, don’t be a wet blanket, everyone loves a good gun fight on the old WeBlog.
You’re comment is pretty darn reasonable and accurate. I would urge you to revisit your statement about lightning however- “more danger of being stuck by lightning than being a victim of gun violence.”
“Gun violence” is not the only way people die or are gravely injured. Think knives and beatings with blunt objects including fists. May seem a small point to you until you are the victim of such.
While this legislation is largely motivated by high profile massacres like the one at Virginia Tech it addresses the overall issue of the right of all people to be able to defend themselves against violent attack. While the risk of being the victim of an attack like the one at V.T. is extremely low at any given campus on any given day there are other types of crime to be considered. There are plenty of cases of assault, robbery, rape, and murder that occur on campuses across the nation on any given day. Forcing responsible adults to be defenseless simply because some people have some Utopian view of campuses as entirely safe and peaceful places serves no one.
Opponents of such legislation cite imaginary scenarios of unstable 18 year olds going off on history professors for berating them over their last paper on the political ramifications of the whiskey rebellion. They use the same old tired images of OK corral shootouts over choice slots on the bicycle racks that proved to be false across the nation regarding CCW in general.Tired false arguements proven utterly baseless.
Forcing defenslesness for the sake of FEEELling safe is cowardice and shear stupidity.
Tom Paine
Who’s advocating allowing CCW on campus by 18 year olds?
I think Arizona is considering such a law.
Some already do, just not legally. The ones I have read about who go crazy with their guns are the psycho’s or criminals who don’t have a legal right to carry.
Need I point out the 2 incidents over the past 2 weeks in Israel involving attacks on schools, both of which were stopped by armed administrators and students?
Of ocurse, I understand in Isreal military training and service is mandatory.
ANY citizen who is over 21 and has no felony or high misdomeanor charges and who takes and completes a gun course and passes a range firing test should be allowed to carry a weapon anyplace at anytime he or she chooses to do so.
Well, college students DRINK. Especially at frat parties which are on campus.
Just saying.
Including into a police station, or a military base, or the White House? Possession of a CCL is not proof of eligibility for Heaven. Timothy McVeigh was proof of that truth.
I have mixed feelings about it, simply because maturity levels vary during the college attending years.
In a place like Israel, young people are trained either in mandatory Army service or their Defense force. There is no equivalent in the U.S.
University are similar to small towns in size and although a different scope. They are a community and communities need protection.
I’m not so sure Professor Havaad Prissypants would like the idea of Front Row Student A packing a Glock as he hands him his third “F” for the semester. :D
Here in Atlanta they are digging graves today for 2 college girls killed in one day! Probably for their cars:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/03/07/unc_0308.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/03/07/auburnarrest_0307.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
This is just ONE DAY of killing on “safe” college campuses. We need MORE armed people! Not less.
Guns are for losers.
College ‘kids’ are adults by many standards, especially age. They should be allowed to carry a weapon for self-defense.
So how many guns do you have J R?
I think college kids should be able to pack heat, besides school shootings, how many times have you heard of a college girl being ambushed and murdered while shes jogging late in the evening.
I imagine it would be hard to job with a gun though.
I only own one gun and I can’t conceal it, its a 12 gauge pump action remi.
Firearms are a large part of our heritage. They are a large part of our culture. I would like to see universities have a comprehensive firearms program. Courses in firearms history, design, legislation, etc.
They should have firing ranges and inter mural competitions. Programs for CCH should be an integral part of the university educational program.
You are still in more danger of being stuck by lightning than being a victim of gun violence
I wasn’t aware that over 10,000 people a year were killed by lightning.
Legally Licensed Concealed Carry Holders;
Have NO felony convictions.
Have never been convicted of domestic violence.
Have NO history of mental illness.
Have passed background checks and have their fingerprints on file with local law enforcement and the FBI.
Have passed mandatory State training in both the use of a firearm and the applicable law.
Can you say that about the other people on campus or anywhere else for that matter?
Of course they should be able to carry anywhere including campus.
PS: Jr Posted March 8, 2008 at 7:34 am
“Guns are for losers.”
No Jr, you’re the loser and I am confident could never qualify for a CCW permit.
CCH should apply without regard to age, imo.
That’s because the largest portion of its value at PREVENTING violence in the first place lies in bad guy’s inability to discern who’s packin’ and who’s not.
Game theory says the efficaciousness of CCH in PREVENTING violence stems from the amount of knowledge held by the bad guy. If he can’t accurately identify who has a gun, and if he must therefore assume everybody has a gun (and this assumes s/he’s rational: ah, the Achilles heel), then he’s far less likely to use his gun or knife or baseball bat (scrolling down the continuum of rationality) in the first place.
Kids who are around that age, bad guys included, know practically by osmosis how old that person over there is. If they know that nobody in the group by the person they wish to harm is 21, then I’m arguing that they’re more likely to do harm.
The law should apply to anybody who can enter the campus. It should not be passed if doing so gives bad guys the very information that a well-crafted CCH law is designed to deny.
I’m pretty pissed off at the NRA for turning into a bunch of appeasing namby-pamby rights-giver-away-ers. They turned into a marketing arm of small weapon manufacturers. The NRA promotes registering concealed-weapon-carriers in governmental data bases and systematically promotes denying 2nd Amendment rights to a significant segment of the American population.
I’m talking, of course, of the government’s unconstitutional ban of guns in prisons.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?!
Convicts in Prison have the right to religion. Convict-run prison newspapers are testament to their right to freedom of the press. If charged with a crime, prisoners have the right to face their accusers, to a trial by jury, to their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Convicts in prison cannot be subjected to double jeopardy.
But every American’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is endangered by the unconstitutional denial of incarcerated prisoners their right to keep and bear arms in prison!
What’s more, it just makes sense. Just as advocates of Concealed Carry laws have proven that more guns on the street will make criminals have second thoughts about committing crime, those same criminals will be circumspect about committing crimes behind walls if they know every one of them is packing heat. What better way to prevent prisoner rape than to arm the potential rape-ee? Who’s gonna shiv a snitch if his target’s ready to drill him with a .44 Magnum?
Now, you may say something bleeding-heart pinko-liberal like, “What about the guards? Won’t prisoners shoot the guards?” What a faggoty-assed, piss-ant un-American pantywaste *you* turned out to be. Modern prisons are constructed to permit guards from never coming in contact with prisoners. Ever hear of bullet-proof glass? Ever hear of remote-controlled gates and doors? Ever consider that, perhaps, guards themselves might be armed?! (The only reason prison guards aren’t all packing heat is the ill-conceived, *UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!* effort to deny convicts the right bestowed to them by God, by God!
Monkey”boy”
You forgot the right to vote. They should have the right to vote in Federal elections.Only question, would they vote for candidates in the district in which their prison resides or the district in which they were convicted?
Can you say President Hillary Rodham?
Woohoo! HiLARious, MH!
I second that motion.
If you really believe in the 2nd amendment, you should let INMATES carry guns.
C’mon, Nathan and GMC, you have no problem with that, do you?
While I realize the Monkey’s post was a simple, or more accurately simpletons attempt at humor he ignores long established federal and state law.
“Federal and state laws govern the establishment and administration of prisons as well as the rights of the inmates. Although prisoners do not have full Constitutional rights they are protected by the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Prisoners’ rights are limited. For the most part, jail and prison inmates may demand only a “minimal civilized measure of shelter” (Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 [3d Cir. 1983]). Generally, courts follow three basic principles when deciding whether to recognize a particular right. First, an inmate necessarily gives up many rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of society; second, an inmate does not relinquish all constitutional rights upon placement in prison; and third, the constitutional rights retained by the prison inmate must be balanced against the security concerns of the prison.
The established rights of prison inmates include FREEDOM OF SPEECH and religion;
Prisoners’ rights can be infringed for security purposes. Prisoners have the right to freedom of speech, but prison officials may search their mail, deny a wide variety of reading materials, and edit the content of prison newspapers. Prisoners have the right to adequate space, but they may be confined in isolation for long periods, even years. Prisoners have the right to freedom from restraints, but their ankles and wrists may be shackled when they are moved. They may also be temporarily strapped down or otherwise restrained if officials believe that they present a danger.”
“Boxlock” offers –
“Prisoners’ rights can be infringed for security purposes.”
The Constitution of the United States of America says, “The right to keep an bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.”
Just what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand, “Boxlock?”
As you don’t seem to understand Monkey, constitutional rights can be withheld when they conflict with security purposes as has been long established by Federal and State law.
Just as minors or those with mental conditions do not have full constitutional rights to the second Amendment and others as well.
Monkey do you fit into one or more of those categories as I’m sure Jr does?
Monkey likes to argue to the absurd extremes.
Lets look at it from another angle.
What buildings, typically, do not allow guns?
Airports, but there is airport security.
Court Houses, but there are all kinds of law enforcement officers.
Schools, but, but, well, —-
It’s ridiculous that a professor I know who is not just a CCW permit holder but also a CCW instructor and nationally certified range safety officer is not allowed to carry on his campus. He would be much better able to protect not just himself but his students and other faculty in a crisis.
“Boxlock” squirms –
“…constitutional rights can be withheld when they conflict with security purposes as has been long established by Federal and State law.”
Uhm, “Boxlock?”
There’s no longer-established law than the ink-and-parchment of the Constitution of the United States of America, as amended.
The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms “…shall not be infringed.” Just what part of those four words do you not understand?
“…shall NOT be infringed.”
Get that?
Yup. There have been other constitutional rights that the SCOTUS has ruled may be infringed. You can’t shout “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house, for example. But the 1st Amendment does not say the right to speech, assembly, religion, petition “shall not be infringed.” Only the 2nd Amendment.
You’re arguing diametrically against the black-letter law of the 2nd Amendment when you advocate that 2nd Amendment rights can be infringed.
You’re Sarah Brady without the balls to admit it.
Whoa, Monkey you live in a foggy, foggy world.
Are you a product of a bad public school system?
Law was established long before the Constitution. In fact the Declaration of Independence which created the original USA was signed in 1776, and the Constitution not until 1787.
The founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution did not write those documents for idiots such as yourself, but for what they considered reasonable individuals that were capable of reading and applying logic. They had no idea there would be people with as little understanding as yourself being given a forum such as this.
“Econ101″ squirms –
“Monkey [sic] likes to argue to the absurd extremes.”
It doesn’t seem all that extreme to read the only article of the Bill of Rights to include the words, “…shall not be infringed,” into the discussion.
I’m on your side, here, “Econ101.” Hell yes! Guns in college! Guns in kindergartens! Guns in bar rooms! Guns in prison!
What part of “…shall not be infringed,” do you not understand, “Econ101?”
“Firearms are a large part of our heritage. They are a large part of our culture.”
Yeah that is true. It’s probably also why the USA FAR outpaces the rest of the world as to gun violence.
I was playing with toy guns from the time I was a toddler.
But I have raised my own son in a different way. He has had no toy guns and no exposure to real guns.
He has no interest in guns at all.
“Boxlock” flounders with –
“Law was established long before the Constitution.”
Perhaps you should look up the word “constitution.”
All law relevant to governance of the United States of America begins with the Constitution of the United States of America.
That’s what a constitution is for, “Boxlock.”
And then you add:
“…the Declaration of Independence…” which, of course, was a document of rebellion, not of governance.
Regardless of stuff written before the Constitution of the United States of America — the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, love letters from Alexander Hamilton to his mistress — the only one that established the government we Americans live under is the Constitution.
And the only right specifically and explicitly can NOT BE INFRINGED is the “right to keep and bear arms. Look it up. Read the words.
Walk on by…..
Monkey”boy”
Kindergarteners should be able to carry if they can as well.
IF you are in a store, and an armed hold up takes place, and there are 4 or 5 folks in that store who have a licensed CCW on them, and ONE of them pulls their weapon to stop the robbery perpetrator… HOW DO THE OTHER CCW folks know that the one who pulls his weapon isnt part of the robbery??? What does he do, holler: “STOP I am legal to carry this weapon!” What is to stop one of the other LICENSED CCW folks in that store from drawing down on the FIRST CCW holder who pulls his/her weapon on the perp???
Anybody have a magic answer for this one?? I mean, I dont think the CCW folks meet outside the store, and go in as a group so they know each other, right??
Guns will make everyone safer that’s why Iraq is the safest place to be. Why just let college students bring weapons to school, why not 12 year olds or six year olds?
Monkey, again FULL power of the Constitution does not extend to mental defectives, like yoursel…well…you know, or those who have abused them.
There are three ways to prove things in the physical world;
The scientific method, which doesn’t apply well here.
The Historical/Legal Method, which does.
And Logic, which does.
The denial of 2nd. Amendment Rights to prisoners can be justified with both the Historical/Legal method and the application of logic.
You seem to be working at a tremendous disadvantage in both those disciplines.
The Constitution did not abolish existing law.
“Kindergarteners should be able to carry if they can as well.”
I would say that at the least this makes you an unfit parent Heckler. It also raises doubts as to your sanity.
Chas, yours is a hypothetical situation of which thousands could be constructed but belong in the fiction writing category not the historical real world. And of which “a magic answer” would be a foolish attempt to argue with fools who drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience living there.
A similar case could be made for not wearing seat belts creating a greater danger, or that a fire extinguisher could explode, or that helmets could further increase the risk and severity of harm. None hold up under ANY historical or logical examination.
But that’s not your agenda is it? No, yours is one of political motivation and is transparent.
Boxlock
Well said.
“British Common Law” was not abolished by the Constitution.
The laws of the individual states, likewise, remained intact after ratification of the Constitution.
Anybody have a magic answer for this one?? I mean, I dont think the CCW folks meet outside the store, and go in as a group so they know each other, right??
——————————
The CCW folks will be the one squeezing the tomatoes or stooping over their shopping carts instead of holding a gun to the store manager’s back.
“Boxlock” –
The question at hand was:
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
JR
If you had half a whit of sense you’d realize I was illustrating Monkey”boy”s absurdity by being more absurd.
As for fitness to be a parent, I promise you that I won’t be teaching either of my kids to kneel at the feet of some government agent for their subsistance.
So, is there something unlikely about 4 or 5 CCW folks being in a store at the same time a robbery is being perpetrated??
Is it also unlikely that at least one of those CCW people would draw down on the Perp??
Is it unlikely that the OTHER CCW folks might wonder of the one drawing down might be a part of the robbery??
Come now, folks… of course it is a hypothetical… but it was OK yesterday when GMC posed a hypothetical….
So, what are the OTHER CCW folks to do when one of their own pulls down on the Perp??? How do they know that he/she is NOT part of the robbery?? They dont have badges, ya know…
I would hope the CCW person thinks before he pulls his/her gun and drops the suspect. One should never pull their weapon unless they intend to use it.
Pulling your weapon and then making a statement that you are going to “use it” in a dangerous situation where split seconds count, is a sure way to make things go bad.
So, then, that makes CCW a license to kill?? Without an arrest?? Without Miranda?? Without a trial?? A death sentence for a crime not worthy of the death penalty??
Is that what your solution is?? Hmmmm…. Monkey, I dont think we’re in Constitutional Country anymore!!
Chas
“So, is there something unlikely about 4 or 5 CCW folks being in a store at the same time a robbery is being perpetrated?? ”
I’d say the only place that’s likely to happen is in a gun store or maybe a sporting goods store.
Although it could happen at a Sam’s Club on a busy day but they likely wouldnt all be clustered around the cash registers.
Hell yea, no more flunking students!
What mental midgets!
You don’t have to have a trial, or a death sentence or issue a Miranda to defend yourself, your family, your friends, or anybody else close around you from immediate lethal threat.
And immediate lethal threat (perceived) is the only justification for using a lethal defense.
Guys, EVEN YOU TWO are smarter than that, quit digging yourselves deeper into idiocy than you already are.
Heckler, if as many folks had CCW as some of you all advocate, I would submit it would be highly likely!! You are trying to spin away from the proposed scenario… Do try to stay on point…
Chas
The only people I’ve heard refer to a CCH permit as a “licence to kill” are folks who go squishy in the pants over the concept of using lethal force in self defense. “Natural Rights” and all that stuff makes some folks uncomfortable, makes them somehow responsible for their own well being and all that.
Chas
“if as many folks had CCW as some of you all advocate”
I’m not sure what you mean here. There’s only about 12000 who have permits in Kansas so far. I’ve certainly never claimed that the numbers were vast.
Oh, Boxer??? Even the police have to identify themselves… as in “Police! Freeze!” before shooting a Perp… One can hardly argue that a Perp pointing a gun at a store clerk is a lethal threat to the person with the CCW… I suppose the clerk COULD per chance be a relative of the CCW… but that wouldnt be terribly likely…
And, yes, the CCW is taking upon him/herself the role of cop/judge/jury/executioner…. when such is not necessary, unless he/she is actually threatened — As I said, CCW is a license to KILL…
I realize there are different rules that would apply if the Perp was on the PROPERTY of the CCW person… But a store robbery would hardly qualify for that scenario…
I see the use of deadly force to be a major legal problem for the shooter, when an alternative is clearly possible…
After all, these CCW folks are allegedly highly trained in the use of their weapons…
Chas
But for the sake of your hypothetical, assuming by “rob” you mean rob a teller at a register or at the service counter- it would depend on how many of them actually saw the act from the beginning. Now speaking for myself I would tend to believe that the Bad Guy would be the one pointing a gun at the teller. If anyone else with a gun had it pointing at the guy with the gun on the teller I might assume that they where a Good Guy. Again, speaking only for myself in a situation like that, I’d just back the hell away and find cover until I could figure out what’s what and who’s who. If I had one of my kids with me I’d just cover us and get as far away from the situation as possible.(run like hell)
Now that sounds like a reasonable thing to do, Heckler!! LOL Most reasonable!!
Somebody yesterday mentioned the value of CCW for some young woman out jogging… The thought occurred to me… It could be extremely difficult for a young woman, or man, to CONCEAL a weapon while out jogging… Not sure how much good that would do the jogger!!
I mean, most people dont wear very concealing clothing while out jogging!
Chas
There are some holsters options that work well for jogging, although it helps things to have a small, lightweight weapon. A 40 ounce 14 round Para-Ordinance 1911 would NOT be ideal for jogging.
OK, Heckler… so where would a weapon be concealed while jogging?? You see many jogger outfits lately?? Except for winter, most of them wear the bare minimum of clothing… Mny guys are only out in running shorts — and women routinely wear shorts, and some sort of tight fitting top… (athletic top)… Where do you propose Concealing a weapon with such clothing?? It isnt the size of the gun I was referring to… it is the CONCEALED factor of the law… :-)
Chas
“One can hardly argue that a Perp pointing a gun at a store clerk is a lethal threat to the person with the CCW… ”
The self-defense statutes do allow for using lethal force in defense of others. But from a legal standpoint it better be a clear and imminent threat.
Chas.Posted.
“Oh, Boxer??? Even the police have to identify themselves… as in “Police! Freeze!” before shooting a Perp… ”
Again, absurd! Under immediate lethal threat they can and should fire as quickly as possible stop the threat.
The person under threat does not have to be a relative, or even known to the CCW or police, for them to take lethal defensive action.
This entire argument is prefaced on, as you say “he/she is actually threatened”. Of course you can’t shoot someone simply because you don’t like what they are doing. There has to be a lethal or grave bodily injury threat first and always, if that condition is present then no warning is mandated for defense.
But Boxer — Police officers are routinely placed on temporary suspension, or at least desk duty, following an incident of deadly force, until investigations are finished… And in most cases, they ARE required to identify themselves… unless being fired on directly!! I believe you can check that one out for yourself… :-)
The beauty of the CCW law is that a perp. should well realize that if they threaten someone with death or grave bodily harm they may be taken down and killed without warning by the police or anybody carrying.
That’s a hell of a good deterrent.
Chas
It would pretty much require either some loose garments or a very secure fanny pack type of container. I’ve not tried them but some folks claim that “Smart Carry” (formerly known as “Thunderwear”) works well. Its an elastic belt you wear under your pants or shorts with a pocket across the lower abdomen or groin which holds the weapon.(or wallet or knife or whatever) It would require wearing slightly loose shorts. But some folks say it works well. I’m not cozy with the the idea of a pistol in that region.
gotta go
“I’m not cozy with the the idea of a pistol in that region.” — Heckler –
I wouldnt think anybody would be!! LOL
Chas. I have checked it out. It is a part of the legal instruction given in CCW classes.
I can’t legally even banish a weapon unless there is an immediate bodily threat. Certainly warnings are necessary when a situation lacks that immediate harm prerequisite. But if moments matter in a situation of protection from bodily harm no warning is necessary, or even advised. A warning then only gives them time to kill their victim or those trying to stop it.
Boxer, I do believe there have been a number of studies done that show that most Perps who do armed robberies never have any intention of using their weapons… They are just a tool for intimidation… There are numerous cases where it has been learned after investigation that many weapons brandished during armed robberies are not even loaded… Again, the intimidation factor —
Granted, anyone present with CCW would not know if the gun is loaded or not… It just seems to me that the CCW individual would be much better off to disable the Perp, and wait for police to arrive… and let the system take over… If the CCW people are as well trained as has been alleged… disabling a Perp should be no problem… After all, it has been posted here MANY times that CCW people are better trained at using weapons than many police officers!!
I’m out’a here.
Don’t threaten anybody and you likely will never ever have to worry about it.
Here’s my problem in a nutshell… Where in our unique system of justice is Armed Robbery deserving of a Death Sentence??
And yet, so many CCW proponents defend use of deadly force without blinking an eye…
Perhaps it may be shocking to some that I am going to differ with some of my liberal friends, but I really don’t have a problem with duly certified CCP holders carrying their weapons on college campuses.
Not an issue, from my perspective. I don’t really think that it would make a damned bit of difference, but it won’t really hurt.
I don’t know for a fact, I assume that certain crimes – DUI, etc. – may cause a CCP to be revoked. I don’t think that Joe College is going to shoot his Poly – Sci professor over the “F” he got on his paper titled “GWB is the Greatest President Ever” nor do I think that Jill Junior is going to blast away at a sorority party because Judy was kissing her boyfriend.
CCP is not a concern of mine – I just do not see that MORE guns is an answer that is going to solve these problems that we face.
“Where in our unique system of justice is Armed Robbery deserving of a Death Sentence??”
Sorry, Chas, but with all due respect, Armed Robbery can easily turn into multiple murders and no one can really tell the intention of the robber.
Maybe he is just a kid that needs a few bucks – maybe he is a two time loser looking at life without parole for a third conviction.
It is a tough call, but if you are armed and are committing a robbery, you don’t have much room to argue with what may or may not happen.
I do not currently own a weapon, but if you break into my house, you will first deal with my dog that will try to bite your nuts off, then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.
Catching a .357 slug or a lead pipe in the head isn’t going to make much difference.
If you break into my house the dogs will be glad to see you!
And if somebody breaks into your house, you SHOULD defend yourself!! Nobody needs a CCP on their own property defending same…
Personally I have an old Louisville Slugger by the door for that purpose :-)
Those not in custody don’t get Miranda rights. :)
Monkeyhawk, you are a bit short sighted about the wordings of the Constitution.
You are trying to take one part of the Constitution and say that it is the law when in actuality the Constitution is written with consideration as a whole.
You have to apply the other articles, sections and amendments to properly interpret your rights.
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” does not give you right to disregard the rest of the Constitution.
There is a pretty good chance that your house will be broken into. There is also a pretty good chance you and/or your family will be home when it happens.
You need a plan.
A lot of families have a plan for fire, or tornadoes but not one for break ins. (Actually, very few families have effective disaster plans, but even fewer have a plan for a break in.)
If some one breaks into your house you and your family should know to all go to the same room, lock the door and call the police. Stay there until the police arrive unless some one is missing or unless they try to break into the room.
“Wiseman” offers –
“You are trying to take one part of the Constitution and say that it is the law when in actuality the Constitution is written with consideration as a whole.
“You have to apply the other articles, sections and amendments to properly interpret your rights.
So exactly where in the “other articles, sections and amendments” does the Constitution state that
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed?
Since I live in AZ, I guess I’ll briefly weigh in.
Even if it passes (it won’t), Janet will very likely veto it. The. End.
But it makes for a nice 2nd amendment flashpoint, now,don’t it? :)
P.S. No time to engage this dabate (thankfully!), but I would offer some choice Dogbert advice:
***
Dilbert: “What’s your position on gun ownership, Dogbert?”
Dogbert: “I believe everybody should have the right to own guns.”
Dilbert: “What about automatic weapons?”
Dogbert: “I’m all for them. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have the weapons of their choice. However, I also believe that only I should have ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn’t trust the rest of you goobers with anything more dangerous than string.”
Dilbert: “What about Charlton Heston?”
Dogbert: “I’d keep the string away from him.”
***
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate LEGISLATION, the provisions of this article.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Except in the commission of a felony, then you pretty much left the majority of your protections and rights at the front door.
Once in custody, you can get your rights back IAW the law. During the felony, you are pretty much considered hostile and treated as such.
“Regular” gets it wrong again with –
“…in the commission of a felony, then you pretty much left the majority of your protections and rights at the front door.”
Nope. Only a court of law can determine if an accused as committed a felony. Cops can arrest</i< you and charge you with a felony, but every defendant is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
Nice try MonkeyHawk.
There is no Juris Prudence in a hostile situation.
My apologies to the attorneys, but dangerous situations such as a robbery where hostilities are involved (armed robbers)the hostiles have pretty much given up any rights until they are in custody.
Imminent Danger situations trump case law sorry.
Qualifying that, there are procedures and practices that should be followed in order to prevent unnecessary injury or death.
So, if students are allowed to CC, would that extend to Faculty, and Staff?? Janitors?? Yard Maintenance?? Librarians?? Food Service?? Secretaries??
Or JUST students??
Hopefully everyone Chas.
What on earth!?!?
To this day I still don’t understand why my dads name will pop up on my computer…
That was me above
Chas
I believe that the laws in question would simply state that CC permit holders could carry on campus.
Under that understanding, you could be a parent, visiting a student, and have a weapon.
As far as janitors and other employees?
Well, Employers do have rights and responsibilities over employees.
I do not know if the legislature was trying to trump employer/employee regs here.
Pernsonally when it comes to self defense and CC im more of a edged weapon kind of guy myself,
Chas
One other thing, we are not talking about
“punishment” here.
If I were to find out that someone had done a crime, and I walked up and shot that person, when there was NO threat? Yes, that would be wrong.
However, If anyone is a threat to anyone else, and the threat is clear and present, I can do pretty much whatever I want, to defend the victims involved.
That is NOT punishment. That is protection of the innocent.
The rights of the victims always trump the rights of the criminals, so long as the threat is present.
Tom
Tae Kwon Do instructor always told me that a man that prefers a knife over a gun, “probably knows how to use it, and might even enjoy it”
I have a very old, very sharp WW II German Nazi Bayonet very close to my bed if an intruder should get that far…
chas has a bayonet, ws has a lead pipe.
You guys are doing it wrong.
Sorry, but tactically speaking, choosing a knife over a gun for personal protection when you could have a gun instead is simply absurd.
I would rather have a nice shotgun or tactical rifle over a pistol for protection as well.
“You guys are doing it wrong.”
How’s that Fleet – ya don’t think that a lead pipe to the head wouldn’t deter an intruder – especially is he is dealing with a 105# dog at the time?
The last and only time I had to deal with an intruder, I convinced him that leaving my home was preferable for him rather than have me bash his brains out with a fifteen pound dumb bell.
PS – it was someone that I knew and I knew he wasn’t armed.
My Dad got this one from Berchtesgarden in Austria… Belonged to an SS officer… Name is still on the handle, and the blade… pretty nice piece of hardware!!
“Tom Paine” –
Looks like the Vermont and Alaskan laws do a lot of infringing, something the 2nd Amendment specifically outlaws.
“Nathan” should be able to carry his “nice shotgun or tactical rifle” anywhere and everywhere he goes.
Chas was your father in the 3rd Infanty or was he a paratooper?
Tom,
The point was that you should use the best option for your defense at the time.
If you can use a pistol, what sense does it make to choose a knife or lead pipe instead?
If you are able to use a shotgun, what sense does it make to have a pistol?
If you are able to use a tactical rifle, what sense would it make to have a pistol?
There are certain weapons which provide you a much better advantage in many different circumstances.
There is not any argument against that.
A knife or pipe will only provide you protection at extremely close distances. Your chances of injury, fatal wound, or death are significantly higher taking a knife into a fight vs another knife and/or especially against someone with a gun.
This is common sense stuff here. Yet several people here act like having a pipe or bayonet is the best thing since sliced bread.
“Yet several people here act like having a pipe or bayonet is the best thing since sliced bread.”
Oh, bullshit.
WS Clark,
So why don’t you have something better for protection than a pipe?
Do you think having a pipe will do you much good if that intruder had a pistol instead?
Wrong Nathan… just dont want a gun in my house…
Chas,
Are you afraid of a gun? Why wouldn’t you want one in your home?
What if an intruder brings one into your home, are you going to hope that you can get close enough with that bayonet and stop him from simply shooting you?
Would you want a picture of the missing link in your home??? I just dont WANT a gun in my house… My dogs will let me know if anybody is trying to get it… My Louisville Slugger or Bayonet will work just fine!!
“Do you think having a pipe will do you much good if that intruder had a pistol instead?”
I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it, Price. I have good quality dead-bolted doors, motion-sensitive outdoor lighting, an alarm system, a small dog that barks at every noise outside and a large dog that has a bark like the Hound of Baskerville.
I don’t spend my time worrying about the bad guys breaking into my house.
Like wearing my seat belt, having a fire extinguisher in my garage and my kitchen and a smoke alarm, I am prepared but I just done worry about it.
Most likely, in the next year or so, I will buy another gun – probably a S & W or Ruger .357 Mag – but that is because I like to shoot, not because I am all that worried about the bad guys.
The problem with a pipe or a bayonet or sliced bread is you have to be close enough to touch them. That’s too close.
“The problem with a pipe or a bayonet or sliced bread is you have to be close enough to touch them. That’s too close.”
Depends on how good the sliced bread is – I make a mean loaf of sourdough.
I like this gun – probably will be my next – I prefer revolvers over autos, so this just might be it.
Ruger .357 Mag SP101……………..
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger_SP101.htm
Tom,
I understand that sometimes you might not have what is best and must make do with what you have.
My comments were in regards to thinking that a lead pipe, bayonet, or bat is enough when you do have the opportunity to get something better like a pistol.
WS Clark,
If you have all that stuff, then why brag about having a lead pipe too?
If you don’t think you need a gun for protection, then why would you think you need a lead pipe for protection?
Chas,
Anyone who has anytime at all in defensive training would seriously disagree with your bayonet or bat being just fine.
If someone has a gun, your bayonet or bat will be virtually useless.
If someone has a knife or other blunt object, then your chances of winning are probably less than 50% depending on how well either of you are able to wield those weapons.
Somehow, no offense, I doubt you have much training with either of those weapons. If you did have training with them, you would understand how they are not the prefered choice for defense and are only used as the ultimate last defense.
The shit will really have had to hit the fan for me to be in a knife fight or blunt weapons fight.
Chas,
You still didn’t answer my question. What is it about a gun that makes it so offensive to you that you wouldn’t want one in your home?
Hey Chas, is it a bayonet or a dress dagger?
What you are describing sounds more like a dagger. Neat things those. And are you sure it is a name or is it just German words?
“There is a pretty good chance that your house will be broken into.”
No, really there isn’t. And it is even LESS likely it would happen with anyone home.
“If you have all that stuff, then why brag about having a lead pipe too?”
Huh? I never “bragged” about having a lead pipe – I merely mentioned it.
This hardly sounds like “bragging.”
“then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
This is just more typical low-priced stuff – meaningless.
Did you have a point to make, Price, or is this just more of your bullshit?
The pistol is a great equalizer.
It allows people who don’t have the skills to fight, the strength to fight, or the ability to wield weapons like blunt objects or knifes in a fight the ability to defend themselves.
All one must do is grasp some basic marksmanship fundamentals and become familiar with their pistol to be able to defend themselves very effectively against a multitude of much bigger, stronger, and more skilled fighters or others wielding a knife or blunt object.
Even if someone else has a pistol and is attacking you, you still have a pistol of your own and the ability to defend yourself.
WS Clark,
That last quote wasn’t mine.
My point was that you indtroduced the fact that you have a lead pipe for defense and that you have even used it.
My question for you, is that if you have all those other security measures, why do you feel the need to have a lead pipe too and not a pistol?
Nathan
Posted March 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
Sorry, but tactically speaking, choosing a knife over a gun for personal protection when you could have a gun instead is simply absurd.
I would rather have a nice shotgun or tactical rifle over a pistol for protection as well.
—
Who am I to argue with a USMC armorer?
ANS: no damn body.
Recommendations?
I used the google with “tactical rifle” on my internets and M40 popped up. It looks like a really short big bore shotgun, although some of the stuff next to it said things like “1/2 inch 100 yard accuracy still applies.”
wtf does that mean?!?
Seriously. I agree with Hank: the odds are too high that every American homeowner will suffer a break-in, and coupled with the fact that I’m a home-body I think I’d be a fool to ignore the likelihood.
If you’d care to, please elaborate. Do you have specific recommendations?
“That last quote wasn’t mine.”
It was posted under your name and sounded just like you.
“My point was that you indtroduced the fact that you have a lead pipe for defense and that you have even used it.”
So why the bullshit that I was “bragging” about a lead pipe?
“My question for you, is that if you have all those other security measures, why do you feel the need to have a lead pipe too and not a pistol?”
One, I prefer revolvers over pistols and, two, I sold my last revolver to a police officer (he begged me) and have not purchased one since.
I just don’t worry about home intrusions all that much………………….
Damn, I don’t worry about much of anything all that much.
But right now, on another tab, I am checking out the S & W offerings in revolvers.
It’s not like I feel I need one for protection, but I do like to shoot.
WS Clark,
No where did I post this:
“then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
Those are your words:
WSClark
Posted March 8, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
“I do not currently own a weapon, but if you break into my house, you will first deal with my dog that will try to bite your nuts off, then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
Pedant,
Thank you. I am by no means some perfect specialist on this.
However, I have taken many classes on self defense, defensive pistol shooting, knife fighting, hand to hand combat, deadly force, and the escalation of force.
It is basic common sense that having a pistol beats having a knife or bayonet any day of the week and if you have the ability to have a pistol over a knife or bat you should use a pistol instead.
To quote you, Price, learn how to read……
From MY post:
This hardly sounds like “bragging.”
“then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
I was quoting myself, dingbat.
Even if you have a knife or bat against someone with nothing, you have to get withing reach of them to use them and your knife or bat can easily be taken away from you.
They can really be taken away from you or removed from your hands by someone trained.
Then you are going to be fighting them hand to hand or against your own knife or bat.
Good luck with that. Me, I will simply pracitce Sight alignment, Sight picture, Trigger Control, and Breath Control as I put enough rounds into them to stop the threat.
“Even if you have a knife or bat against someone with nothing, you have to get withing reach of them to use them and your knife or bat can easily be taken away from you.”
Or you can have a big dog with a bark that will raise the hair on the back of your neck.
I took Judo lessons briefly (about a week) from a former American Champion in Judo. One of his spiels at the beginning of the class was, “If you run across with someone with a gun and you are unarmed, cooperate and hope for the best.” He as implying, no matter how fast you are or how skilled, a gun usually wins.
That dude was a special athelete, only 155 pound guy I ever saw bench press over 350 pounds. :)
Nathan, why are you concerned that I dont want to have a gun in my home?? I have a good home security system… I dont feel much of a need for owning a gun… Dont like them all that much… too darned noisy!!
JR — My bayonet definitely has a NAME on it… I still read fairly fluent German… The previous owner was a Colonel… It is made to fasten on to a rifle… BUT, it is housed at the moment in a very fine made leather sheath…
Nathan — I can do what I need to do to an intruder with my baseball bat, and my bayonet… One puncture wound with that bayonet and no intruder will be going anywhere… except possibly to the morgue…
Chas,
How exactly do you plan on giving that intruder a puncture wound when he has a pistol?
Ok, thanks Nathan. I have had my last 2 posts flagged as “waiting for moderation,” so I doubt anybody has seen them.
If you somehow find yourself with time to waste here elaborating on tactical rifles, and why they’re preferable to shotguns or handguns, I’d for one sure be happy to listen!
Nathan, the intruder would FIRST have to get through a highly secure infrastructure, with extremely well made locks… IF he does that, I will be waiting for him behind the door… He would never SEE me… Nuff said??
I dont NEED a gun, Nathan… period!!
Nathan, what makes you so insecure as to think anybody would want to breakinto your house??
I keep little or no Cash… I have no jewelry… I have no illegal drugs or guns… At most, there might be a Hummel collection!!
Computer systems arent stolen too often… too bulky to carry!!
I feel very secure… Why dont you??
Pedant,
It depends on the situation. A pistol is a defensive weapon, not an offensive weapon.
It can be used for offense, but when it comes down to it, you want a bit more firepower at your disposal when on the offense.
If I were indoors, I would want to have a nice tactical shotgun with short stock. It would give you greater firepower and stopping power.
In any shooting, you want to stop the threat as quickly as possible.
If the person you are shooting can still shoot back or fight, that is bad.
If I were outdoors, a nice tactical rifle would be my choice.
A pistol is really only effective at very short distances.
A rifle gives you much more stand off power at ranges of 100 yards and beyond.
A pistol will give you stand off of maybe 25 yards unless you are really taking alot of time to aim.
A pistol round is much more easily deflected and has a much lower muzzle velocity.
A rifle gives you the ability to have more accurate, more deadly, and more reliable firepower getting onto the threat.
I would really like to get one of the new personal defense weapons which are being made for security details these days.
The knights armament 6×35 round looks great.
Too bad you can’t have the better ammo for them as a mere civilian.
Chas,
I feel very secure. I have a pistol.
Aha. Excellent. Thank you, Nathan.
Nathan… why would you be on the Offensive, if you are attempting to DEFEND your property or your life?? Doesnt sound like a good choice of words to me!! :-|
Chas,
The word gun, doesn’t sound good to you. Why would anything else?
I would try to explain it to you more, but you still have yet to grasp the basic concept of how a pistol is better for defense than a bayonet….
Well, then, I feel quite secure as well… And I dont own a gun… never have… dont plan to…
Chas,
I couldn’t really care less if you ever choose to own a gun or not.
I am simply not going to let you convince someone else out there in the real world that having a bayonet for defense is better than a pistol.
I think the idea, Chas, is to not let your weapon limit your options. I am no gun dude, but even to a gun idiot like me it makes sense.
If you can’t go on the offensive, and your limited to defensive actions only, you’ve cut your available escape options in half. Not good.
To me, this makes perfect sense tactically.
I am curious as to why I saw some reluctance earlier when I raised the question of not just arming students on campuses, but also Faculty, Staff, and other employees… Cant quite figure out why there was reluctance to have all parties on campus have CC approval… well, 21 and over!!
Good lord, “Nathan” –
You’re moving into nutso territory again. You want your “nice tactical rifle” for its accuracy and firepower at 100 yards? To defend your home from invaders?
Paranoia strikes deep.
Too bad it’s not a dagger. Those things are worth a bunch of money.
It’s probably a K 98 type. That was the standard issue. Though sometimes the SS had better stuff.
Heh, the Germans had a thing for knives and daggers ceremonial, decorative, AND lethal.
Nathan from your posts, it almost sounds like you secretly hope to get to use your guns.
I mean it is one thing to worry about a break in. But when you start worrying about standing off threats at 100+ yards? Geez if someone is threatening me at 100 yards I can pretty much just go the other way.
Then your reason for keeping the weapons is not JUST for defensive purposes?? Seems like that changes the entire scenario a bit…
Chas,
The bill proposed in Arizona will allow anyone with a Concealed Carry permit the ability to carry on campus.
It didn’t specifically say only students.
Most states already require that anyone buying a pistol must be 21 and I am pretty sure that to get a Concealed Carry permit anywhere you have to be 21 as well.
So limiting the bill to those 21 and older is only a natural extention of already existing laws.
Well, the thread only mentions Students…
I ponder the presence of CC students on a college campus… And I ponder if any of those students might get some idea of being on the offensive — like some have alluded to here… I also wonder how long it would be before those under 21 would want the same CC privileges as the older students… Also, would the college/university offer the gun training course as part of the course catalog??
Chas,
And the article linked in the thread clearly explains the proposed bill.
Try clicking on the link and reading it.
It is in the 2nd paragraph.
In the amount of time it has taken you to ask the same question twice you could easily have read it by now instead.
Oh, I get it… only YOU are permitted to continually ask stupid questions, right?? OK… I already read it!!
By the way, this argument reminds me of my friend. She always chided me for checking for traffic that might be coming down the wrong way before I crossed a one-way street (where we both worked, at Beechcraft).
Like I told her: sure, it seems silly to check for traffic that wouldn’t normally come the wrong way down a one-way road (ie, it seems silly to armor up for bad guys who are 100+ yards away), but if you don’t check that direction then any old lawbreaker will be the guy who takes your life. As in: anybody who drives drives the wrong way and that you don’t see will kill you dead (ie, for any number of reasons you could be attacked by a nut). Lesson: never assume that existing laws will protect your health or even your life.
My goal is to live this life, not to die due to the actions of a nut.
Daylight Saving Time starts tonight. Does that mean “Nathan” will start accusing “Chas.” of not being a Christian tonight one hour earlier?
I could see funds well spent to secure campuses, and use more armed security ON campus… Limiting entry points to the campus would be a good start — All entrants pass through detectors… just like at the airport, or at a Courthouse… sounds like good security to me… And I dont know why it cant be done…
And especially at public schools… middle schools… high schools… If Columbine would have had limited entrance points, with detectors, there would have been no shootings there… Same with VA Tech… and numerous other places… even the Jewish Seminary in Jerusalem… BTW, that shooting was answered by an Israeli Army soldier living next to the Seminary…
I believe Firearm instruction and safety would be a great course for all college/Universities….
Most anti-gun rhetoric is from people who are ignorant of proper/responsible gun handling. Anyone who is properly trained/registered to carry would be an asset to today’s society.
Properly trained responsible adults are not guilty of the mayhem that frequently erupts in today’s society.. This is caused by mental illness and drug abuse, two factors which are often associated with members of the Democratic party…
“two factors which are often associated with members of the Democratic party…”
You mean like George W Bush?
Wait! He’s Republican.
Sorry, my bad.
Sounds like we got a Michael Savage disciple here… or maybe a Mark Levin follower…
By the way, and for what it’s worth, chastising attractive women for not checking for “wrong” traffic coming down a one-way road did not in my experience prove very seductive when all was said and done. Go figure. :?
Just sayin’ that females do not appear to respond strongly to father figures who in fact do not resemble in the slightest their father.
Damn reckless females. :D
(Lesson: women NEED to feel that, between her and “the” male, they’re exclusively the safer party…or it ain’t happenin’ for ‘em, not for the ones worth happenin’ to anyway.) :D
Pedant — Huh???
Test it, Chas, if you have doubts.
Ummm not sure what you are talking about??
I am, or was, trying to make a smart-ass comment re: Mars and Venus (men and women).
It may not have come off, though, for you. In that case: carry on.
Chas,
You are in Texas right? Go by some of your universities and tell me how easy it is going to be to staff metal detectors on all entrances or to limit entry points.
For someone who tries so hard to convince everyone about how little concern you have for something happening to you or others, you are now proposing some pretty drastic measures to protect people.
Sorry, I didnt see any Mars/Venus reference prior to that comment… I thought maybe you had posted on a wrong thread… Sorry!!
Checking for traffic that is coming the wrong way is pretty smart. Any one that has ever lived on a one way street can testify to that.
When I moved back to Wichita in ‘86 I lived on South Market. Cars regularly sped south late at night. They made good time, they were not slowed down by the traffic lights!
Driving in the UK or other ‘wrong way’ countries a habit of checking both ways, then checking again is a very good habit. I was always surprised by traffic approaching in the ‘wrong’ lane!
MonkeyHawk
Posted March 8, 2008 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
Daylight Saving Time starts tonight. Does that mean “Nathan” will start accusing “Chas.” of not being a Christian tonight one hour earlier?
============================================
Toooo funny, Monkey!!
I dont recall saying it would be easy… Just that it might be worth spending some dollars to do it… And it CAN be done… if not on entrance to campuses, at least for each building entrance… Limit Entrances to a MAIN entrance… with all others requiring keys… or key cards… Small campuses… like Friends, or Bethany, or such, could easily seal off the campuses… But, most likely building entrances would be the best bet… And I do believe, worth the expense to prevent loss of life…
Pedant, were you getting the “mediation” message earlier?? Cause what you posted about wrong way traffic wasnt on my screen when I asked you what you meant… ok?? I see where you were going now… and I agree… somewhat…
Ummmm neither was Hanks comment on South Market either… I too have encountered wrong way drivers on some of Wichita’s one way streets…
I also wanted to clear up some other disturbing comments made earlier by Chas about simply disabling someone by shooting them.
Chas, I am not saying this to insult you, but you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to self defense or using a firearm. This is clearly evident by your posts here.
Using a firearm is considered deadly force. Besides the fact that according to the law, such use is considered deadly, it is also taught by every single self defense class I know that shooting someone is an act of deadly force.
Deadly force is any force used which could cause death or serious bodily harm.
Beyond the mere technicality of shooting someone being deadly force, if you are in a situation which warrants shooting someone, it should only be when you feel that your life or someone elses is so threatened that you must use deadly force to stop that threat.
If you are in a situation where you think you only need to wound someone, then shooting them is not required and shouldn’t be used.
Then there is the entire Marksmanship point of view as well.
Anyone with any experience shooting would understand that hitting a target, especially while under stress, takes some skill.
When someone like Chas simply says we should aim to wound, it is so apparantly obvious that he has never had any training in marksmanship.
Where exactly would you aim to wound someone anyhow?
The arm? The leg?
Do you know how many different ways there are to bleed out if an artery is hit in the arm or leg?
Do you realize how small of a target an arm or leg is? hitting the arm or leg is no small feat especially when the guy you are trying to shoot has a gun and could shoot back.
I don’t want to risk my missing him, just barley wounding him, so that he can simply turn and start shooting back.
When you shoot someone, you shoot to stop the threat. You aim center mass. That is the largest target and the one sure to be hit and stop the threat.
This talk about shooting to wound someone is made in complete in total ignorance.
Please take this as something to learn from Chas and not an insult.
Nathan, sounds to me like you would rather KILL a perpetrator, than bring him to justice… I think that is probably my biggest fear of CC being legal…
I flat out disagree with you about shooting to wound a perp… But thats ok… I think that is allowed… And I think it can be done without YOU resorting to ad hominem style name calling… If thats all you got, then I stand by my earlier claim that a Perp can be dropped, and held for police…
Once again, you are saying that by carrying CC, and USING such, you are willing to be cop/judge/jury/and executioner…. for a crime not worthy of prosecution as a death penalty crime!! WHY do you keep ignoring that simple fact??
“…. for a crime not worthy of prosecution as a death penalty crime!!”
Some one pointing breaking into my house is not worthy of prosecution?
Chas,
-I am a trained Marine Corps Rifleman.
-I am a Marine Corps Marksmanship Instructor.
-I have taken several classes on self defense with weapons.
-I have been through class instruction on state law pertaining to the use of deadly force.
-I am trained on the escalation of force, the application of force, and what deadly force is because I guard weapons in my job.
-I have been shooting weapons most of my life and consider marksmanship a hobby of mine.
Exactly what do you base your suggestion of shooting to wound someone on?
It surely isn’t experience. It surely isn’t law. It surely isn’t based on self defense.
What is it?
You think you are one big, bad MF don’t you marine-boy?
Many of us think that your just a big LOSER!
Chas,
In shooting someone, outside of the Military, I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to stop the threat.
Shooting someone is deadly force. I am not trying to wound them nor am I trying to outright kill them. I am trying to stop them from killing me or someone else.
Once again, if you are going to shoot someone, it should be because deadly force is required.
Protecting yourself or somone else from serious bodily injury or death warrants the use of deadly force.
It has nothing to do with executing someone or taking the law into your own hands. It is about protecting yourself or others.
If you have time to think about merely wounding someone then you shouldn’t be shooting them.
Chas,
You’re last post shows a complete misunderstanding of the law concerning the use of deadly force.
You can only use it in public to protect your life or someone else’s life.
In your car or in your home you can use it to protect your property. (Castle law)
As licensed CCH holder I have no responsibility, legal or moral to ‘bring a perp’ to justice. I have no desire to engage a ‘perp’ in any way.
I cannot threaten people with my gun. That includes merely telling a stranger that I have one.
You use your weapon only if you think that you someone else is threatened with death or great bodily harm.
You never, never pull your gun unless you intend to use it. Then, you shoot to kill.
If an armed robber points a weapon at me or someone else, that is a circumstance that legally allows the use of deadly force.
Sorry, that’s the law.
“Apophis” speaks for himself when he says –
“Many of us think that your just a big LOSER!”
I don’t think “Nathan” is a loser. I think “Nathan” might be among the one-in-five Iraq War veterans who’s returned to America with undiagnosed, untreated brain damage.
Almost certainly, “Nathan” suffers PTSD.
He doesn’t quite realize that whatever realistic fears he had in the war zone seems way out of the bounds of reality in the United States of America. For personal “defense,” for example, he prefers a “nice tactical rifle” with high accuracy and firepower at 100 yards.
If “Nathan” suspects you’ve shot his dog, he promises you and your car “will disappear.”
“Nathan” feels is necessary to brag about the many ways he knows how to kill people.
“Nathan” feels he’s on the inside track to God to the extent he regularly attack others whose relationship with The Almighty might take a different route.
“Nathan” may be a few sandwiches shy of a picnic, but he is not a “loser.” Even when it seems like his brain is made of potato salad.
My humble opinion is that Hank and Nathan are itching for the chance to kill someone. Scary.
“Nathan” explains –
“In shooting someone, outside of the Military, I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to stop the threat.”
And just how many people have you shot, outside of the Military?
How is it you get in all these situations?
Or is this just another one of your paranoid fantasies?
Euopean saying/joke:An American trying to enter the US did not have his proper ID, so when asked to to do something to show he was an American, pulled out a gun and shot the Border Guard, which was accepted as proof of citizenship.
Hank, we went through the law and the use of lethal force for defense earlier but it simple doesn’t get through to Chas.
Nathan,
Don’t ya get a kick out of these folks that don’t shoot, don’t own weapons of any kind, yet suggest a knife or bat is as good as a firearm. Or, that one should shoot to wound, like you can do that at will. Or as if a firearm is a death ray that immediately incapacitates regardless of shot placement.
I load 40 ea. size ‘F’ lead shot, (.22 cal., 16 gr. ea.)in front of 26.5 gr. of IMR 800-X out of a 20 inch. rifle sighted 870 Remington. Behind that are #1 buckshot, and in the stock mag. 1 1/8th. oz. slugs. That’s the bedroom defense. Other means in other parts of the house.
“Boxlock” describing “Regular”s “twice barrel”
PS: Those size F loads are nasty on both ends.
Not hardly JR.
Mine is a antique double barrel ten gauge. Which btw is kept in storage.
Uh huh.
Busted.
Regular,
What manufacture of 10 ga. is it?
Busted for what JR?
You think I’m Boxlock?
lmao, what a paranoid putz you are JR.
World
Class
Loser
It took you a whole 8 minutes to switch nics?
Or…you just couldn’t wait any longer.
Boxlock,
I know. I know. It is almost sad. I simply think it is an outrage to pass such bogus information about self defense on this blog.
Chas is setting someone up for being killed with the advice he is giving. I am not trying to attack him like some petty argument, I am trying to tell everyone else that might be reading this that Chas has no idea what he is talking about.
If you have to shoot someone, the time for thinking about wounding them has come and gone. You are shooting to stop them and you don’t stop someone by trying to shoot them in the arm or leg.
Suggesting something like that comes from someone who has obviously never spent a day at the pistol range.
I dunno boxlock, not a gun geek. It has two hammers, most of the lettering is worn off from age and use I suppose. Doubt if it even works.
Was my grandfather’s who bought it used and he gave it to me as part of his estate.
Hey Boxlock,
Only shotgun I own is an 870. My favorite. It’s in my bedroom closet loaded with 00 buck.
A good weapon to clear a hallway in an emergency! I don’t reload any more, dogs and horses are my hobbies now.
The reason I want to start reloading is because of the price of ammo.
About the only reason the war makes me sad… .223 ammo is so expensive it is not even funny.
test
Tomorrow is DST… Now is time for bed… I am most distressed over Nathan’s willingness to KILL a suspect, rather than allow the justice system to work as it is supposed to work, and then claim that I have something wrong with MY thinking!! What a CROCK Nathan!!
Anybody with your expertise in marksmanship could easily wound a perpetrator…. And with your skills as a Marine, you could easily hold that perp for the police… But YOU would rather KILL somebody for a crime not deserving of the death penalty!!
That says a LOT about you…. And it is quite scary to see it in print!!
As for me –
Good night; Good luck; and God bless;
Whatever you conceive God to be…
Blessings All!!
Regular,
You hang on to it…especially if it was your grandfathers. That’s a nice keepsake.
I have my Dad’s Belgium Browning A-5 shotgun and his Winchester 67 .22 Auto. I don’t shoot either now because neither is made any more and to valuable so they just sleep in the safe. They will go to my son or grandsons.
Hank,
I agree, an 870 is quite reliable, and the sound of that action chambering a round I hope would discourage an intruder from continuing their activities.
Chas.,
I doubt Nathan wants to kill anybody, I know he doesn’t, that’s just ridiculous. To take someones life would really screw up the life of the survivor. But, you can’t reliably elect to ‘wound’ someone in an encounter involving firearms. Most times people survive, but many times they don’t. If you have to use a weapon you do so so as to stop the action that is causing your action in the first place, and you attempt to do so with a shot placement that has the highest probability of success. All this bantering back and forth yet likely, and hopefully, the odds of ever needing a firearm for self defense will be minuscule.
Well, good night to you too Chas!
May the God of Abraham keep and protect you!
“I know he doesn’t, that’s just ridiculous”
How do you know that, Box? You don’t know that he just might be a secret psychopathic killer that is just waiting for his shot (pun intended) to kill off one of the bad guys – maybe even an evil liberal.
Outrage Of The Week — For American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Truth Hurts
Friday, February 29, 2008
For American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Truth Hurts: The shills for anti-gun politicians that make up the leadership of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) are up to their old tricks again. Once again, they are trying to raise money from hunters and sportsmen, whom they hope to fool into believing they share their interests.
But when NRA-ILA puts the word out that AHSA is an anti-gun front group, these “sportsmen” get a little sensitive, calling ILA staff “right-wing attack dogs” and calling gun owners who support the right to own firearms to defend themselves “self-defense whackos.” (To see the comments Ricker made on a popular pro-gun blog, please click here.)
But the truth is, AHSA and its anti-gun leadership have supported anti-gun lawsuits and gun bans, and its leaders have given money to the Brady Campaign and to anti-gun politicians like John Kerry, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Ted Kennedy.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3604&issue=
New Orleans Police Chief Suggests Gun Ban
Friday, March 07, 2008
Pity New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley. When it comes to firearms, Chief Riley (along with his boss, Mayor Ray Nagin) just doesn’t get it.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3647&issue=
Outrage Of The Week — Political Hypocrisy By Obama
Friday, March 07, 2008
A March 2 commentary in National Review Online (NRO) demonstrates the hypocrisy that often abounds in the campaigns of anti-Second Amendment candidates. This time, the transgressor is Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
In his NRO column, Jim Geraghty recalls how a few years ago, Obama (then a state senator) proposed enactment of a federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from operating within five miles of a school or park. Of course, considering the geography of most cities and towns, banning a lawful business operation within a five-mile radius of a school or park would very often amount to an outright ban on those businesses.
While that endeavor certainly demonstrates his disdain for FFLs and their legitimate business, another vote demonstrates Obama’s apparent tolerance for what others would no doubt consider controversial businesses. On a Senate bill to prohibit sex-related shops to operate within a five-mile radius of schools or houses of worship (which failed), Obama took a pass, and voted “present.”
The Obama spin: He was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities!
Advocating a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products, while showing support for, or, at minimum, indifference to, holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard is not only hypocritical, it’s outrageous!
If you see something that you feel would be a good candidate
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3648&issue=
Well WSClark, we weren’t even talking about liberals, but now that you brought it up I guess you COULD (?) be right.
I mean Liberals are far worse that murderous criminals for sure and just maybe somebody, not saying anyone here of course, just might feel they were doing the world a heck of a favor by going ‘open season’ on some.
Now you know I’m just kidding along with you… don’t ya???
Hope you are well this evening WS.
So much of this talk by the ‘gun enthusiasts’ here is, I think, just that….talk. I know I have a hobby interest in firearms, reloading and certainly defense, as well as hunting and the ‘clay sports’ all goes along with that. Nobody here wants harm to come to anybody….even the liberals. We all need to be figuring out a way to be a little kinder if not more understanding of each others views, especially during Easter.
What the Hell, Ann “the Man” Coulter thinks that liberals should be killed………………
WS, you know good and well Ann is an entertainer first and foremost. Maybe not to you is she an entertainer, but she is to some…like me, but she no more thinks that and you know it.
At least I don’t think she thinks it ‘all the time’, ha.
Ya know “WS”
There isn’t any real reason that you could not be one of James’s puppets too.
“Max” is here and “Boxlock”.
If I’m wrong? Why not prove it by ignoring the muppet show?
“There isn’t any real reason that you could not be one of James’s puppets too.”
Blow it out your fleetwood, J R.
Since when are you the Blog Police?
I will respond to whomever I want to – if you don’t like it just go phuck yourself.
Damn, you have a lot of nerve.
I don’t have to prove a god damned thing to you.
For once I agree with Clark.
That’s what I thought. It explains a lot too.
Me too!!!
“That’s what I thought. It explains a lot too.”
I used to think that Ian Santiago was the biggest jerk on this Blog, J R, but you have gone far past him in idiocy and illogical posts.
Damn, you are even worse than Regular.
You are nothing but a crybaby because not everyone supports your heroine, Hillary Clinton.
Grow up, J R.
James said he had a mole.
I think I just found him.
Consider a recent throwdown. James goes to Denny’s. “WS” goes to Quick trip.
Now I’ve said what I suspect and I’ll let it play out.
Then? I’m going to put this thing to the test.
So, Max and Box…………..
I am considering either a Ruger SP 101, .357 or a S & W 36……………. which would you recommend?
I like the Ruger and have had good luck with them in the past and it is a .357, but the S & W is also a nice piece.
So, since I like revolvers, what would you guys think would be a good choice?
Well, I’m out’a here for the night.
Don’t forget to set your clocks forward an hour before bed. I wouldn’t want to miss any of you back here on the blog on time tomorrow, especially you Libs.
I’m not worried about JR though, I don’t think he knows how to use a clock anyway.
“Then? I’m going to put this thing to the test.”
Who the phuck cares what you think, J R? I have been on this blog for going on two years – always under the same nic – so what are you planning on “testing?”
Good God, J R, are you trying to alienate EVERYONE?
Sometimes I think I smell some nic stealing going on… this is one of those times…
WS,
Ya caught me just before shutting down.
Either is a great and very reliable revolver.
There was a time, in the not to distant past, I would not have owned a S&W, what with their deal with the anti-gun crowd in the Clinton Adm., but they are one fine outfit and gun manufacturer now. They were owned by some British Co. then, now they are American owned again and a great company. They are simply great as far as warranty goes as well, although I doubt your would need any warranty with them now.
I bought a S&W Classic 1917 in 45 ACP. You use full moon clips to hold the auto pistol cartridges and load all six at once. It is a beautiful revolver. Mine had a slight mar on the front light blade and they emailed me a return authorization to return it next day air and returned it the same way….what a company.
Ruger is also simply excellent and you will probably spend less by a little. The Rugers’ are tough as can be and if I were reloading, and loading hot, the Ruger is the way to go. They will take almost anything.
Either would be great.
Clark, I don’t think you could go wrong with either one.
Ruger and S & W have great reputations for revolvers. I’m a pistol guy, but know several revolver owners out there.
If you’re getting a gun for target shooting, my favorite is a Browning Buckmark .22 cal. Now that’s a pistol, but there are several .22 revolvers out there as well. At 2 cents/round it’s cheap and fun to shoot.
Course in the .357 you can shoot .38’s or .357. Much less kick with the .38’s. You’ll pay from 20 – 30 cents/round though.
WS,
The S&W 36 is strictly a .38 Spl., if you want a .357 Mag. you will need to look at a model 60.
Both are smaller than the Ruger and more concealable for CCW.
I have a .357/2in. barrel and I will only load it with 38s. The .357s recoil too much and actually hurt after awhile in a small frame revolver.
As Max says the centerfire ammo is much more expensive than 22 rimfire if you are just wanting to have some fun and plink. The 38/357 would be better for defense.
I have owned both Rugers and S & W’s in the past and found that both were very reliable and extremely well made.
The first handgun I owned was a Rossi .38 and I was very disappointed with it – the grip was too small and it tended to shoot to the left (!) which made it difficult at the range.
The Ruger .22 convertible was great – inexpensive for target shooting but having the capability of shooting Magnum rounds. I also liked the S & W .38 a lot. For whatever reason, I tend to like the short barreled revolvers the best.
Anyway, my son-in-law wants me to get a 9mm pistol, but I am thinking revolver all the way.
Hey, boys, I am an OLD guy and a snub nosed .38 police special SEEMS like the gun for all purposes!
I just love the sound of the name “thirty eight snub nosed police special!”
Kind of makes me think of Jack Webb and the old Dragnet programs.
(Then, again, it could be because I am a bit snub nosed myself!)
Anyway, thanks for the input………….
WS,
But, even with a Buckmark 22, nobody wants to get shot, and it would serve you well as well.
Here are two good links discussing different calibers and stopping power:
http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Law%20Enforcement/Ammunition/Caliber%20Selection.htm
http://www.internetarmory.com/handgunammo.htm
And one more:
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2004/03_StudyDay.htm
Hell YES !!! IT GOING TO BE YOU OR OR THEM.
If I’m wrong I will say so “WS”
I don’t think I’m wrong.
And I am sick of this who is who. I’m gonna put an end to it.
Don’t do it JR!
“And I am sick of this who is who. I’m gonna put an end to it.”
Well, then go right the phuck ahead, boy.
Damn, you are getting as boring a Regular, J R.
Please hold on. We are experiencing a high call volume. Your call will be answered as soon as possible.
(Meanwhile, the recorded message voice reads poetry from Sylvia Plath)
How’s that “WS”?
I should think you’d be happy to see me do away with the nic switcher?
That is unless you are part of it?
Back to the original topic: No, I am against allowing students, or professors for that matter, to carry concealed weapons on campus. Too many things can go wrong, especially when spur of the moment decisions are required to be made in unfamiliar situations, even for those who are trained and legally equipped.
Bad things have happened before and would be sure to happen again.
05/04/1970
“Well, then go right the phuck ahead, boy.”
Just do it, J R, and stop babbling about it. If you are going to do something, just freakin’ do it and stop talking……………………
Damn.
You are reposting yourself now “WS”?
With that, I am out of here for the night….
I promised my family a breakfast of biscuits and gravy, potatoes O’Brien, scrambled eggs and sausage in the morning and I had better get some sleep.
J R isn’t going to do a damn thing (more idle threats) so we will leave it at that.
Hey, Obama won tonight, as did KU and KSU.
Not everyone is a loser like J R.
Oh you better believe I am going to bust this who is who wide open.
And I shouldn’t find enemies on the right in doing it. That is unless they think they need multiple fake voices here.
Go pick another nic James.
Oh, hell . . . now you’re probably BOTH going to come b!tchin’ to me about how bad the other one is.
Dudes, shake hands and say yer sorry.
This is tempest in a teapot.
J R–
This is probably not the best time to bring this up, but WSC cannot possibly be JM-Regular-Khan.
Clark is the guy who used to post the ASCII finger as “Jew Boy” because JM was hounding him with the “heebie” epitet.
You guys are both on the same side. Save it for reich-wing fascists.
Capn’s correct.
JR and Clark, kiss and make-up.
(No tongue allowed JR)
Trust me Capn.
Remember LRB and Crusader X?
I know what I’m doing.
This from the guy who learned how to cut and paste two weeks ago!
Really tough postings tonight JR.
I haven’t heard such falsetto bravado since Tiny Tim sang Tiptoe Through the Tulips.
In all fairness Capn, you have your history as a nic switcher as well. “Proud Lib” “Captain Galahad” “True Blue” etc.
I’m going to get to the bottom of it all. And I am hoping I don’t find you there.
Now I am not going to do this like Hank tried to.
I’ve never contacted the editors.
No what I am gonna do is call a meet up and place people to nics.
And on that, I’m out.
Regular,
Remember to ask JR about his meet-up. Ask him every day how it went.
The WE is just dying to hear the news.
It’s a helluva lot easier to simply accept every nic as an individual.
I realize how tempting it is to imagine McCluer as the Sybil of Cyberspace (and I’m pretty sure he might be), but it’s the nature of the beast that linking sock puppets is a no-gain enterprise.
We’ll see. I’m kinda good at planning things.
Come to my meet-up!
Line up against the wall now!
Alrighty then, I’ve had just about enuf of your nic switching. I’m gonna get confessions from all of yous. Don’t make me shake my finger at you!
Clark, what Nics have you used!?! (shakes little pinky finger at Clark. Clark shakes in his booties.)
Stop that Laughing Clark!
Chas, what Nics have you used!?! (Chas wets pants and JR shakes his finger at him)
Gosh JR, I was just Sugar and :: I never used other nics, I swear on a stack of comic books! Please don’t shake your finger at me again!
To be continued…….
heh heh
hilarious…
been watching in between renders…
move along folks, nothing to see here
I even threaten to turn on a light and the roaches run about?
We’ll see what we see.
We see threats.
We see talking.
We see endless talking.
We see more endless talking.
Never does anyone see JR doing. Never doing anything.
Aww I’m not gonna break this here and now James.
It’s late on a Saturday night. I’m a single dad and you are a mentally disabled cripple.
No I’ll wait for prime time. Say…Monday afternoon.
JR is such a sensitive soul, isn’t he? :)
Guess I’ll hobble on to bed now and take my meds. :D
No I’ll wait for prime time. Say…Monday afternoon.
Can’t wait…
or maybe I can…
Darn scent candle has been smoking for an hour…no flame just smoke…must be really potent wick…
I think somebody just hdd a major melt down. How interesting. Amazing actually.
Who the heck cares what nic a person uses even if they are using more than one…but quite frankly I think JR is mentally ill and this is simply a symptom.
And as to JR’s threats, oh boy are we all scared, so scared I can hardly type here.
JR….your are impotent!
J R–
Google “Occam’s Razor.”
The simplest explanation is that when someone sharply disagrees with you, they just disagree.
It doesn’t mean they’re a right-winger in Lib’s clothing.
Boxlock–
Shut up. This doesn’t even concern you.
Capn,
“This doesn’t even concern” me, except that I keep being accused of being multiple people, I’d say that is of interest to me.
Both you and Jr are so paranoid and lack so much confidence you attack anybody that disagrees with you.
Your arguments are shallow.
“Who the heck cares what nic a person uses even if they are using more than one”
Who have I seen post that before?
It’s a helluva lot easier to simply accept every nic as an individual.
Word up, Monkeyhawk!
Long before “sock puppets” even became an issue, I joked that the entire group of bloggers was invented by just a 70-year-old insurance salesman and a 15-year-old skate punk.
Judge individual posts on their merits and, unless given an obvious reason to assume nic-stealing (e.g. an obviously out-of-character post, or, say, a badly-spoofed nic, like the lowercase “gmc70″ posts). Don’t waste your time (and every one else’s) on fruitless speculation.
It’s not worth it.
P.S. I have little doubt that WS posted above, because it sounds like WS. The writing style is indistiguishable. Likewise, I’ve seen little reason to believe that, e.g., Max and American Way are the creations of others (one Max is quite enough, thank you! :) ) And I don’t know much about Boxlock, period.
Since “joining” this group is as easy as posting a comment, I assume individuals are individuals until clearly shown otherwise. A post that just happens to be highly critical and/or at variance with your views is not a good reason.
Thanks for the home defense advice, Nathan, Hank, Max, and Boxlock.
By the way, it’s obvious from your posts, all of you, just how much thought goes into your preparation for home defense. You guys are all prepared to make a conscious decision to defend you and yours, and I’m not sure how many people reading this (Chas, that’s you! ;) ) realize just what that entails. Far from being irresponsible or cavalier, this is a decision that unfortunately I don’t think everyone is capable of understanding…until it’s too late. Just taking ownership of this decision now adds a level of stress to the case where you actually ARE face to face with somebody in your home uninvited. That’s a level of responsibility you’ve all agreed to take on, and I commend you for it. From there I take Nathan’s point about shooting only in the last resort and then only to kill to heart. I believe that’s excellent advice.
I do think Hank has a point about the high likelihood of a B&E happening to us all. This decision is where the rubber hits the road, and I believe it’s time I bought some tires.
If I strain my neck enough when I step out on the balcony of my condo, and look south down Granby Street here in Norfolk I can see a big building with ginormous lettering on its north face: BOB’S GUN & TACKLE SHOP. Believe I am going to mosy over there later this afternoon. I need to brush up on my own level of gun safety, but I do believe a Remington 870 is in my future. That and some reading on the law. And a bunch of practice.
Funny how I never shot when I lived in Kansas, but now that I’m away from the family farm in McPherson county — where my brother still goes and shoots till his heart’s content :-? — I decide to take seriously gun ownership. Go figure.
Thanks Pendent. It’s important to remember that not everyone has to own a gun, it’s a big decision taking on some responsibility with that decision. It’s important to respect those who choose not to bear arms, and that’s ok. However, it is NOT ok, to restrict my choice to bear arms OR the right of others who make that same choice.
Hank’s point about home invasions and robberies was valid above, case in point – 3 Robbers on a Home Invastion Crime Spree:
Using apartment keys stolen from the complex office, four armed men entered two apartments in the early-morning hours of Feb. 19, 2007. In the first apartment, they awoke Beatriz M. Ward, shoved a gun in her face, bound her hand and foot and ransacked her apartment – shooting her goldfish, stealing food from the fridge, electronics and her Valentine’s Day flowers. One of the robbers shot Ward in the thigh with a pellet gun.
The men all wore bandannas over their faces and pulled hoods low over their eyes. Ward never saw the fourth robber’s face, but in court she identified Wright’s eyes as the “smiling eyes” of the robber.
In the second apartment, brothers Alejandro and Jose Perfecto-Pasqual and their girlfriends were awakened and held at gunpoint, again while the robbers ransacked the apartment. One of the girls was ordered to remove her clothes and Jose Perfecto-Pasqual was ordered inside a closet.
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/LOCAL/802290331/1002/LOCAL
It’s not wise to invade an occupied home without a gun or by yourself. Often, home invasions involve several attackers who are armed. That’s why it’s important to have a high-capacity home defense gun in case you need to shoot multiple times at multiple intruders:
http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/feb/16/youngstown-man-faces-charges-tied-to-home-invasion/
Youngstown man faces charges tied to home invasion
Published:Saturday, February 16, 2008
By Peter H. Milliken (Contact)
A man was shot in the
stomach in the home
invasion.
By PETER H. MILLIKEN
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
YOUNGSTOWN — An East High Avenue man has been indicted on charges of attempted murder, aggravated burglary and felonious assault with firearm specifications in a Jan. 8 home invasion that left a 27-year-old East Dewey Avenue man critically wounded.
http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/feb/16/youngstown-man-faces-charges-tied-to-home-invasion/
Here’s a follow-up to the IN case:
One of the men in the other apartment, Jose Perfecto-Pasqual, testified they ordered him into a closet, forced his girlfriend to remove her clothes, and tried to force her to engage in sex acts with his brother, Alejandro Perfecto-Pasqual. One of the men, described by Jose Perfecto-Pasqual as having braids in his hair, took the other girl off to the ATM.
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/LOCAL03/802270321/1002/LOCAL
Geez, just search the news on Home Invasions, they are everywhere!
11:12 a.m. March 9, 2008
MORENO VALLEY – A 13-year-old boy was arrested Sunday on suspicion of breaking into an elderly couple’s apartment, beating them senseless and raping the unconscious woman, authorities said.
Another suspect in the brutal home invasion attacks was still at large.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/riverside/20080309-1112-homeinvasion.html
This has never happened to you, so I’m sure it never will. Last one:
Three Teens Arrested in Cordova Home Invasion
MEMPHIS, TN – Sheriff’s deputies say three teenagers are responsible for a home invasion that happened in Cordova on Friday, February 29, 2008.
Investigators say Ranget Jefferson, 18, of Millington, Rakeyta Jones, 18, of Cordova and a 17 year-old entered a home in the 10,000 block of Rathmore Cove around 9:00 p.m. Friday. Officers say the front door to the home was not locked. Officers say Jefferson was armed with a weapon, possibly a BB gun and the 17 year-old was holding a baseball bat and knife.
Officers say Jefferson and the 17 year-old confronted the homeowner, 51 year-old Bi Zhao and her two year-old granddaughter. Officers say they bound Zhao’s feet, hands and mouth with packing tape. The toddler was not hurt.
Investigators say the teens then ransacked the home and took cash, jewelry, a laptop computer and other items.
http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=191e9deb-70e0-438a-8cc2-8693cb95a83c
This has never happened to you, so I’m sure it never will. Last one:
Three Teens Arrested in Cordova Home Invasion
MEMPHIS, TN – Sheriff’s deputies say three teenagers are responsible for a home invasion that happened in Cordova on Friday, February 29, 2008.
Investigators say Ranget Jefferson, 18, of Millington, Rakeyta Jones, 18, of Cordova and a 17 year-old entered a home in the 10,000 block of Rathmore Cove around 9:00 p.m. Friday. Officers say the front door to the home was not locked. Officers say Jefferson was armed with a weapon, possibly a BB gun and the 17 year-old was holding a baseball bat and knife.
Officers say Jefferson and the 17 year-old confronted the homeowner, 51 year-old Bi Zhao and her two year-old granddaughter. Officers say they bound Zhao’s feet, hands and mouth with packing tape. The toddler was not hurt.
Investigators say the teens then ransacked the home and took cash, jewelry, a laptop computer and other items.
http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=191e9deb-70e0-438a-8cc2-8693cb95a83c
In Google News, there are 9,456 hits on “Home Invasion” 962 hits just since March 1, 2008.
http://news.google.com/news?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&oe=UTF-8&startPage=1&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=home+invasion&btnG=Search+News
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2751_136/ai_n24254483
Home invasions
USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Dec, 2007
Home invasions. Rapes. Carjackings. Murders. Every day our local and national news report that these heinous crimes are being committed all around us. What rarely is reported is the number of crimes that are prevented when people use guns in self-defense. According to research by Florida State University, Tallahassee, an estimated 2,500,000 Americans use a gun to protect themselves from criminals each year.
In most cases, no shots are ever fired; the mere act of wielding a weapon is enough to deter the criminal and stop the intended offense. “At first glance the statistics might seem high, but you must understand the dynamics involved,” notes Chris Bird, author of Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense. “Most people who defend themselves with a gun don’t report the incident to law enforcement officials–and unless a criminal is actually shot, you probably won’t hear about it in the news.”
Max
Posted March 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
This has never happened to you, so I’m sure it never will.
—
8O Freaky. I just remembered this.
When I was maybe 5 years old, my family lived on a farm. The land belonged mostly to my mother’s parents. My dad, a Korean war vet, worked the night-shift in a flour mill in town. During wheat season, he came home and began his second shift as a farmer. My mom stayed home with me, my two brothers, and my baby sister.
One night in 1960 (less than a year after the Clutter family murders) my mother came into us boys’ room and told us to get up and go to the cellar. Two college boys had come to our house. They told my mother that their car had broken down, and they wanted to know if they could use the phone. My mother thought they were drunk, and she said that she was with her kids and no they could not. They left, but when my mother heard some noise outside she noticed that they were on my dad’s tractor, trying to start it up. She called my dad at work. She was crying so hard she scared us all quite a bit.
This is where it got pretty dramatic. I can remember hearing my dad’s pickup coming down the driveway, and me and my brothers made a break for it out of the cellar. We got up to the front porch just in time to see my dad slide to a stop in the yard, hop out of his truck, sprint to the tractor, and jump up next to the 2 college kids. My dad had a gun, a pistol, and my brothers and I were pretty darn surprised because none of us had any idea my dad owned a gun of any kind. He made them crawl down off the tractor. He jumped down. He held the gun to one of the kids’ jaw and walked them to the part of the yard that was right under the area light. Pretty soon the cops showed up, skidding to a halt right behind my dad’s pickup. They took the college kids away. I never knew what happened to those college kids, but I do remember that my mother was very badly frightened; I guess the college kids were pretty rude when she said “no.”
So I guess I’ve seen a situation where a gun definitely prevented a crime against my family. Just a property crime, maybe, but I’m pretty glad my dad came home when he did. Weird that I just remembered this…or maybe not, heh.
Hey Max,
In many sections of Wichita your chances of being the victim of a home invasion are greater than your house catching on fire. With a house fire you can leave, call 911 and live to see another day.
If you think you can defend your home from three or more crack heads with a baseball bat, good luck! Maybe they’ll be considerate enough that they’ll let you live. Maybe they’ll take your wife into another room after they duct tape you into a little ball so you won’t have to watch.
“In most cases, no shots are ever fired; the mere act of wielding a weapon is enough to deter the criminal and stop the intended offense.” — from Max’s quote —
So much for only pulling out a gun if you intend to USE it, eh??? Thats what was being said yesterday… numerous times… “Dont pull the gun unless you are gonna shoot it!!” How many times did I see that yesterday??
Hmmmm That doesnt seem to be what that writer thinks!!
So, maybe some of the flamers ought to re-think what was said about my posts yesterday, in light of this little article Max quotes here now… Hmmmmm…..
Chas,
You can’t be this thick headed.
You don’t pull a weapon unless your are WILLING to use it to stop the assault. That doesn’t mean if you pull it you are REQUIRED to shoot them. If the assault stops great, the weapon has done it’s job whether it was fired or not.
Don’t bring it out unless you feel it is the last necessity and you are capable and willing to shoot. But, just because it’s been drawn you don’t have to think “well, it’s already out I might as well shoot them”.
That’s dumb….now get serious, or get your hands off that computer keyboard and step away quietly.
Boxer — STFU!!
Why dont you go FLAME somewhere else?? You and your A$$hole mindset just cant stand it that some people in this world dont WANT your friggin GUN solutions!! I am one of those… GUNS only cause harm and DEATH… either in the right hands, OR the wrong hands… NOTHING productive comes out of it… And Boxer, yesterday either Hank or ANathan was quite clear5 when they said you dont pull the gun unless you plan to SHOOT SOMEBODY… Why dont you use your powers of reading and see for yourself!! And stop FLAMING ME because of my feelings and opinions!! DUMB A$$
Chas?
Is the good reverend off his meds?
Rethink your yesterday posts? Hell, I didn’t think much of them yesterday!
Maybe, kind sir, just maybe, you’re not mentally stable enough to participate in this, or any, BLOG!
Ya okay there Chas? You seem to be having another one of your spontaneous combustion episodes.
I wasn’t flaming you. I was explaining what I and probably everybody else read into the posts yesterday, that yes you don’t pull the gun unless you plan to shoot, but that doesn’t mean you do so if the assault stops prior to your applying pressure to the trigger. Simple concept.
You have a perfect right not to depend on a gun for protection or to ever have owned one, I’m not arguing against that, neither do you have a right to take mine away. And if you advocate doing so, or restrictions on my rights, I’m going to call you on it.
Not flaming just trying to talk here, okay?
“GUNS only cause harm and DEATH… either in the right hands, OR the wrong hands… NOTHING productive comes out of it…”
Chas, I went up to the Ark Valley Gun Club this afternoon and shot a couple rounds of Skeet with a couple old friends and some new friends I just met today. Had a GREAT time with some very nice and helpful people.
And ya know, not once, ever, did the subject of “harm and DEATH”, or shooting people, or shooting any other living thing even come up. Matter of fact the clay birds were pretty safe on my bad second round, but I still had fun. I would say something very productive came out of it, and now I get to spend the rest of the evening enjoying the delightful fragrance of Hoppe’s No.9 Nitro Powder Solvent all over my hands and jeans.
Don’t be too quick to judge what you do not know and haven’t tried.
Max posted March 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm
In most cases, no shots are ever fired; the mere act of wielding a weapon is enough to deter the criminal and stop the intended offense.”
“The mere act of wielding a weapon” would be “threaten[ing] people”.
Hank Price posted March 8, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“I cannot threaten people with my gun. That includes merely telling a stranger that I have one.
You use your weapon only if you think that you someone else is threatened with death or great bodily harm.
You never, never pull your gun unless you intend to use it. Then, you shoot to kill.“
Hey Boxlock!
Sounds like you had a great afternoon. You made me a little jealous! So I just splashed a little #9 behind my ears.
I must clarify the record here.
I NEVER said that you only pull your gun if you are going to shoot someone.
You should only pull your gun if you are PREPARED to shoot someone.
Hopefully, in some circumstances, the mere act of pulling out your gun will be enough to stop the threat and you don’t have to shoot.
If someone is coming at me with a knife, I will pull my pistol out and issue a verbal warning ( As long as there is time to do so) If the person still tries to come at me with a knife or some other weapon I will then shoot to stop the threat.
Again, listening to Chas about things related to self defense or using deadly force is harmful to your health.
Chas’s advice is deadly, wrong, and he doesn’t understand the law regarding the use of deadly force either.
I would suggest that anyone reading his comments on self defense should seriously ignore them.
Chas,
Guns enable people to protect themselves and others from those who would want to do them harm.
Saying nothing productive comes from guns flies in the face of nearly all of American History, let alone the History of the gun.
Thanks Hank, I did have a good time.
I haven’t shot skeet before, or any clay sport except for hand thrown clays, and I got some good coaching from the husband of one of my business accounts. Really a nice couple. And I did meet some fine folks to hang out with.
Wish I’d a stopped after my first round though. I was shooting a new side x side double 20 ga. I had never fired and really did remarkably well the first round, even if I do say so myself. I was breaking the aways and the incoming with regularity. A couple of times I forgot to switch to the back trigger and pulled on a spent case in the right barrel but recovered and took the clay way out at edge of the range for my choke.
The second round I fell apart, couldn’t hit but maybe half. I think I was either tired or was holding the gun too tight against my shoulder and not moving it freely. But I’m going back.
Boxlock,
What is really fun is shooting clays from the rabbit thrower.
They roll and bounce somewhat unpredicatably along the ground and can be quite fun.
I went skeet shooting once.
There were no skeet harmed in my expedition to the range. :)
Nathan,
What I really set out to do was take up Sporting Clays, including those pesky wrabbits. These friends suggested I start with Skeet to get some fundamentals down first. They feel that SC was more difficult. Skeet to me is pretty disciplined in that you need to really pay attention to foot and body placement and having the gun in the right attitude prior to calling for the shot. I’m hoping my second round isn’t a harbinger of future attempts. If I can shoot like I did on the first round I’ll enjoy it. I want this to be fun not a lot of work.
Wow, I’m pooped….off to read a little and lights out.
Safe night all,
I think it is very important that people understand this:
I don’t relish the thought of having to shoot someone.
Simply because I choose to be prepared to defend myself and others doesn’t mean I am eager to shoot someone.
I simply have no desire to put my safety and my life in the hands of someone who would want to do harm to me.
The entire point of what is called “escalation of force” is that you use all other options (If you can) before using deadly force.
You should always use the lowest level of force needed.
When someone like Chas says you should shoot to wound, you are putting not only yourself at a greater risk, but you are placing others at greater risk as well.
Shooting to wound someone increases the chances considerably that you will leave the bad guy open to shoot you or someone else while he is merely wounded.
When it comes down to your life or the life of the bad guy, you do not have to worry about being the judge or executioner. The bad guy is the one threatening your life or the life of another and he has placed himself in the bad situation.
You have no legal obligation to try to wound someone or not kill them at all when your life is threatened.
According to law, you have every right to protect yourself or others from serious bodily harm or death.
Do not listen to Chas.
The issue is not about taking the law into your hands, it is about protecting yourself from death or others from death.
There is no legal or moral obligation on your part to simply die rather than to protect yourself or others.
Regular, you’re a hoot!
“There were no skeet harmed in my expedition to the range. :)”
That is cool Boxlock.
I have only been out a couple of times shooting clays.
I enjoy it, just not enough to make it something I do often.
What I would really like to get involved in is IDPA.
That is some really fun stuff!
A competition of shooting with your pistol in situations which you might encounter in real life.
“Regular”=”Boxlock”
“I simply have no desire to put my safety and my life in the hands of someone who would want to do harm to me.”
Maybe you should ask yourself why it is someone would want to do harm to you?
Good reason for Chas not to have a gun.
Does Kansas report the mentally ill to NICS?
Naathan — I said it was either YOU or your Dad who said you only pull your gun if you intend to USE it… I didnt specify, because I could not remember which one of you said it… However, I was SURE one of you said it…. And thus >>>> from your Dad:
“You never, never pull your gun unless you intend to use it. Then, you shoot to kill.“
Nathan, it is most obvious that you are not only WILLING to shoot to Kill, you are obviously most CAPABLE of doing so… You even stated here once that you like to sit in restaurants here you can take in the whole scene to be sure you can see what is happening… Son, that sounds just a slight bit paranoid from where I sit…
And as far as I know, MAX, it is not a sign of mental illness to NOT want to own or uses a gun!! It might however, be a sign of something not quite right, when you are obsessed with HAVING one at your immediate disposal, AND be prepared to take the life of another living human being!!
That is quite disturbing, old boy!!
Gosh Chas, if I pull my gun on a home intruder and he runs out the door, do I still have to shoot him?
The gunshot wound to the back with him laying outside just won’t look very good.
Max
Posted March 9, 2008 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
Good reason for Chas not to have a gun.
Does Kansas report the mentally ill to NICS?
===============================
Max… I am not the one obsessing with owning a deadly weapon at my disposal… That would be YOU sir… I do not WANT or NEED a gun…. And IF the NCIS has the mentally ill reported, it would most likely be those that insist on keeping, and carrying DEADLY WEAPONS everywhere they go, for fear of being placed in danger, by assailants unknown… ROFL!!
Oh and Max… Please stop LYING…. I have never EVER said that I would want a GUN… So, why would you post something that says it would be a good reason for me NOT to have a GUN that I have posted repeatedly that I DO NOT WANT!!!
And WHO is it that you think is suffering from mental illness??? Hmmmm???
Well, on that note, I am outta here!! Nite!!
No gun nuts were able to refute MonkeyHawk’s point that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that means prison, on airplanes and every place else.
They just can’t bring themselves to admit that if gun control in prison is a good idea, maybe it’d be good in other situations as well . . .
I still think that the way around illegal spying on phone conversations is to get a phone-gun.
Since the NRAddicts don’t want gov’t to know who owns what gun, they wouldn’t be able to monitor your phone-gun . . .
Hey boy,
Is there a local IDPA affiliated club nearby? Sounds like a great idea to me too!
Come by the office tomorrow if you get a chance.
Pa
Chas.
Posted March 9, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
Why dont you go FLAME somewhere else?? You and your A$$hole mindset just cant stand it that some people in this world dont WANT your friggin GUN solutions!! I am one of those… GUNS only cause harm and DEATH… either in the right hands, OR the wrong hands… NOTHING productive comes out of it… And Boxer, yesterday either Hank or ANathan was quite clear5 when they said you dont pull the gun unless you plan to SHOOT SOMEBODY… Why dont you use your powers of reading and see for yourself!! And stop FLAMING ME because of my feelings and opinions!! DUMB A$$
================================================
This post and a few others demonstrates your instability Chas.
Please seek help.
Chas,
Actually, you have said several times on this thread how you are ready to use a deadly weapon.
It is called a bayonet. You have even said that you would wait in ambush behind your door ready to use it.
The only difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that I am using a gun and you are using a baynoet.
You even said how easily you could poke a hole into someone to stop them.
The difference betwen you and I is that I choose to use a much more effective weapon for my self defense than you claim to.
Dad,
Yeah, there are two clubs here I believe. Or perhaps the same club at two different locations at different times.
They meet once or twice a month at either the Bullet Stop or Bullseye.
I went to an open house for a BBQ one day and it really looks like a bunch of fun.
Just need a good holster, more magazines, magazine holders and lots of ammo.
Also,
My fathers words were a bit vague, but I can assure you that he never meant to say that once you have drawn your weapon you must use it.
Chas,
You are reading into peoples statements and twisting their words here for the sole purpose of being asinine.
Either you have something of substance to add or you don’t.
If you don’t, I would rather you simply not post.
Your posting here has been very misleading to people and very dangerous. I truly hope no one is foolish enough to heed any of your words here in regards to self defense.
CapnAmerica,
It is the left who thinks that prisoners should be treated like they are at a stay in the Holiday Inn, not me.
There are very few pro-gun people who believe that there should be absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership for anyone.
There are obviously, people in our society, who choose not to follow the law. Those that committ crimes which warrant being held prisoner then give up certain privledges or rights that another has.
It is simply absurd to say that a prisoner should have a right to own a gun while in prison.
The complete absurdity of the argument and point is probably why no one bothered to respond to it. That and the fact that MonkeyHawk is a pig and most of us would rather not say one word to him.
Chas,
A bayonet is a deadly weapon. I suggest that if you feel so badly about a gun, you should get rid of that bayonet or at least lock it up so that you can never use it against a bad guy.
Of course it is absurd, Nathan.
That’s the point.
If prison is a good place for outlawing guns, maybe other places are as well . . .
But it’s nice to hear you admit that at least one group (dangerous convicts) deserves to have their gun rights infringed.
When it comes to self defense, it is more than reacting to a situation once it happens.
Self defense starts with being prepared for a multitude of situations and being observant to avoid putting yourself into danger or being oblivous to it.
Sitting somewhere in a Restaurant which would allow you good visability is not paranoid.
It is simply one type of preventive measure you can take to avoid something bad happening.
Would you walk down a dark alley with no visability away from public when you could just as easily walk down the well lighted main street in view of traffic and public?
Are you going to be paranoid for taking such simple steps at avoiding bad and/or dangerous situations?
Of course not.
Once again, another reason to not listen to Chas when it comes to self defense.
You are not paranoid and you are not unreasonable in taking such small steps in protecting yourself and being aware of your surroundings.
If someone like Chas wants to walk around oblivious to what might happen to him with no regard for his safety then that is is misfortune waiting to happen.
CapnAmerica,
Guns are not outlawed in prisons. There are plenty of guards who have access to them and some who carry them for their protection.
So trying to say other places should outlaw guns simply because a prison doesn’t allow prisoners to have guns is rather fallacious.
I can understand why you and your family are afraid Nathan.
Like I said earlier, you should ask yourselves why.
There is a book, I don’t remember the author or name though.
It talks about being vigilant.
Breaks it down into different readiness levels and what to watch for as well.
The author also discusses how not to wear yourself out and that is why it is important to be at the right readiness level.
Obviously day to day life would require one level.
If there is a riot in your town, you need to go up a bit on your readiness.
Wish I could remember what the name of that book was…
Hank Price Said:
“You never, never pull your gun unless you intend to use it. Then, you shoot to kill.“
How much more straightforward can it get??? Nathan, I dont have to read anything into that statement to GET IT… “Never Never pull your gun unless you intend to use it. Then, you shoot to KILL.” What is there to read into??? It says it all for itself… Anybody with half a brain can understand that statement…. Do you feel a need to protect your Dad much, boy???
BTW, Nathan…. As YOU frequently point out, protecting my own property isnot the same as CC, where YOU have said you are prepared to KILL on sight!! As has your father, see above… And I STILL dont want, OR need a friggin GUN!!! What is there that you and you other bozos dont get about that simple FACT??? SOME people dont feel a need to have that ultra-expression of dominance over another human being!! Geez, I swear sometimes I really DO think it has to do with some form of sexual inadequacy feelings with you people!!
Nathan, Max, Hank,
Why do you continue to post back and forth with them, they are mental defectives. That’s obvious. You can’t reasonably discuss anything with someone who’s perception of the world around them is so altered from reality that understanding by either side is impossible.
Frankly I’m very relieved JR, Capn, Chas, et all, don’t want a firearm. They would definitely not be responsible with one and everyone would be put at danger. I suspect they would not be able to legally purchase one either as their instability would lead me to believe they have had problems such that there is a legal record preventing them from legally obtaining a firearm.
I guess your responding to them must be sport, as it’s so easy to turn them into incoherent comedy acts.
Hey Boxlock!
Some I can ignore, they’re so predictable I could post their juvenile responses.
Chas is like trying to drive by a car wreck. Some of his posts are just strange!
He has to be on something!
Hank,
Amen!
Hank, that is a perfect description of Chas!
Sounds like a new nic for him – Crash!
Keep moving people. Nothing to see here!
How’s that shoulder Mr. Hank? :)
Doing well, got to work a couple of dogs yesterday. Momma let me drive my truck a little.
Showers are a bitch, have to take off my shoulder immobilizer. I get a ‘twinge’ or two!
Missed this thread entirely; too busy.
I’ll treat MH with the attention he deserves (cue crickets).
Chas – Per your 12:58 posting yesterday. What’s obvious is that you have NO concept of use of force law in general, much less Kansas law. If you’d like a primer, let me know. I’ll oblige – later, when I have the time.
short answer: – Assuming this armed robber you posit was pointing his weapon at a clerk or some other person, a CCW holder would be entirely justified – legally, and, in my opinion morally – in firing on said robber, without warning, and shooting to end the threat. That means putting the weapon’s sights on center body mass; it makes hits most likely, and makes them effective.
If that means the robber dies, oh well. He made his choices, he rolled the dice, he lost.
“GMC70″ squirms –
“I’ll treat MH with the attention he deserves (cue crickets).”
In other words, you’ve got nothing.
Boxlock,
I am trying not to go back and forth with them that much anymore.
If anything, I feel it is important to be truthful and honest about self defesne on this thread, especially when Chas is putting out information that I believe will put someone at a greater risk of being killed or getting someone else killed.
If you don’t put out the truth to the complete stupidity of the things Chas is saying, there might actually be someone reading this who will listen to Chas.
Chas,
This entire thread has turned into a discussion on self defense. I have made it very clear that I am prepared to defend myself, my family, and others. So, yes, of course I feel the need to defend my father.
I have spoken with my father on many occasions about this subject and I know where he stands. It is absurd to say that once you have drawn your weapon you must use it and that is not what my father meant.
Typical liberal debate style though, take one thing said and ignore everything else while you twist it to mean something it did not.
Speaking of sex…
The book called On Killing by Dave Grossman talks about the psychological aspects of killing someone. One of his conclusions is that killing someone is a very intimate thing. He compares killing someone to sex in the aspect of intimacy. The closer you are to the person you are killing the more intimate and hard it becomes.
So speaking of sexual inadequacy feelings, I wonder about you when you are more willing to use your bayonet rather than a gun.
Chas,
I am prepared to defend myself, my family, and others from death or serious bodily harm.
You too have already admitted that you are also prepared to defend youself, only with a bayonet.
So what makes you special Chas? How can you sit here and chastise my father and I for being prepared to use self defense when you have already said you are as well?
The only difference is that you are using a bayonet and we are prepared to use a gun.
Hypocrite.
Say Nathan, you ever see Deliverance?
Chas is that little kid on the porch playing the banjo.
So he has a limited ability to discuss the issues.
(JR was the one squeeling like a pig.)
I think Hank said it best.
Just a car wreck, drive on by.
Anyone who takes Chas’ posts to heart, doesn’t have the capacity to understand anything anyway.
Hey “Max”?
I’m gonna call you on that one.
I’d like to give you the opportunity to say that to my face.
Care to call a meeting? I bet not.
Let’s just see if you and “American way” and James can all show up in the same place at the same time. Then we can see how big your mouth is in person.
(shakes in boots)
That’s about what I thought.
You’re a gutless, nic switching, turd.
Squeel JR. Squeel!
Go trot back to your corn crib. U B stinkin up the place.
So where’s the announcement for that meet up JR?
JR, the great organizer was going to schedule one and announce it Monday afternoon.
…
Offer’s there James.
No no JR,
You were supposed to announce a meet up on Monday afternoon.
Time, place?
Are you supplying the food and beverage?
Or is this just more windage?
No takers?
How could they turn down the invite to the pig sty?
No, Regular. There was to be a meet-up AND JR was to announce his big STING discovery today.
Still waiting for both to be announced.
If I was the one to offer a meetup it would have immediately been taken as a threat by several on the left here.
Then it would be deleted by the Editors.
I guess when one is proposed by someone from the left it is perfectly fine.
You know, I wonder why they are focusing on the kids in college. Most of the kids would not be old enough to get a CC permit. However, the professors are old enough. But I guess, as with most jobs, you just aren’t allowed to bring weapons to work. It’s a bit of a conundrum I think.
The other problem is how exactly, if at all, will a law like this override the University Constitution or rules on no weapons?
If the state lawmakers don’t pass the law allowing for Concealed Carry on campus with a provision stating that university policy can’t deny Concealed carry by those who are licensed then it will be a mute point.
I would imagine that nearly every campus already has a Student Code, Constitution, or Policy which forbids weapons on campus.
So it might not be a legal issue, but they could still expell you or fire an employee who is found to bring a weapon on campus, concealed carry license or not.
I would hopefully assume that the state lawmakers know this and fix it.
Good point Nathan.
Given that it came from JR I didn’t take his threat seriously. Maybe I should have?
What Me Worry?
Nathan – That makes sense. Even though it is legal to have a concealed weapon, I know at my work I would be fired if I brought in a gun, license or no. It sounds pretty complex, but if it’s a state university, then they would have to abide by the state laws, right? However, what if it’s a private university?
Max,
Unless JR is some Kung Fu master, you have no need to worry.
He once offered to go 10 rounds with me. Unfortunately he backed down on said offer when I excitedly wanted to take him up on it.
TDT,
I don’t think they would override a private business or private school.
They would have to override the state university though for it to be any good.
Otherwise you would still be risking being expelled or fired just not arrested and punished by the law.
As a student, I lived in a Unversity apartment, and the apartment rules prohibited firearms.
Many had to either break the rules or keep their guns elsewhere, like back home with Ma & Pa.
To go hunting, you have to leave the apartment, go get your gun, go hunting, drop your gun off at home again, then go back to your apartment.
How’s that for Freedom.
“a mute point.”
What does a point that is unable to speak have to do with this?
And how is a point able to speak, anyways?
(Hint – the term would be moot point.)
Nathan
Posted March 10, 2008 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
Max,
Unless JR is some Kung Fu master, you have no need to worry.
He once offered to go 10 rounds with me. Unfortunately he backed down on said offer when I excitedly wanted to take him up on it.
================================================
I wasn’t worried.
Now what do you want to come on here and lie for Nathan?
Because it’s become a habit for you lately?
You offered to go ten rounds with me and Capn.
But given the threats you have made about guns, I don’t consider it a good idea to be anywhere near you and I said so. And I can get the post to prove it.
You’ve had more than ample chance to pop off to me in person. And I’ll be at the dog show if you have anything you’d like to say. But quite honestly I’d just as soon not see you.
Just setting the record straight.
Nathan,
I don’t normally disagree with you on much of anything, but I am going to have to take a stand and disagree with you on the following comment you made; “there might actually be someone reading this who will listen to Chas”.
I don’t think anybody seriously listens to Chas!
Now don’t be upset with me…that’s just how I feel.:)
A student, Ytizhak Dadon, 40, a private citizen carrying a licensed pistol, shot and stopped a Muslim terrorist in Israel last week, during a campus shooting rampage that left 8 Jews dead and 9 wounded.
- – -
Once again, thousands of Palestinians are dancing in the street and celebrating, this time over a slaughter of 8 Jewish students by Muslim terrorists.
If it were 8 Kansas schoolchildren gunned down by Muslim terrorists, they would dance and celebrate just the same, just as they celebrated on 09/11/01.
JR posted; “You’ve had more than ample chance to pop off to me in person. And I’ll be at the dog show if you have anything you’d like to say. But quite honestly I’d just as soon not see you.”
JR, are you an entry? :)
weiner dog
No, MH.
I ignored you because you started with a facetious premise. You didn’t write it to be taken seriously. I know that, you know that, I suspect most of us know that. Maybe you didn’t have anything serious to say, and that’s OK. I can take a joke as well as the next guy.
But don’t don’t expect to be taken seriously unless you offer something serious.
As to the subject at hand, it seems to me that while there would certainly have to be some statutory changes made, bottom line is I cannot think of any valid reasons why a student who is otherwise legal to carry a concealed firearm should suddenly have that change when he steps on a campus. Of course, I find that to be true nearly anywhere; it’s always made no sense to me for the law to say “we trust you” on this side of a magic line and “we don’t trust you” on that side.
And to follow up what I wrote to Chas – I hope you understand there is not any difference in the law regarding use of deadly force in defense of self or others for a CC permit holder versus anyone else; there is no difference. The law on use of force is entirely the same, either way, CC holder or not. Thus I think Nathan is entirely correct when he writes that you mischaracterize the law – I’ll assume you do so out of ignorance of the law rather than a more nefarious purpose.
J R–
Max lives in effing IOWA.
I don’t know why he plays coy on that point.
Probably because no one wants to admit they voluntarilly live in Iowa.
MH–
You did that Blog community a great service by posting your question.
The NRAddicts have had to admit that sometimes guns do not solve problems and actually make problems worse: in the hands of convicted criminals for example.
This is an excellent start. It’s now just a short step to “people shouldn’t have .50 caliber armor piercing rifles that can bring down airliners.” And from there to “gun powder should have traceable taggants” and handguns and rifles should be “barrel fingerprinted.”
CapnAmerica,
Maybe in your mind it is a short step, but logically speaking you are taking a superman leap to try and say that not arming criminals in a prison thus proves we should do any of the things you just listed.
Nevermind that you never responded to my comment earlier on your fallacious logic…
But please, feel free to idolize MonkeyHawk some more.
” . . .50 caliber armor piercing rifles that can bring down airliners” . . .
is a Brady Center-created myth. It doesn’t exist.
. . . “And from there to “gun powder should have traceable taggants” and handguns and rifles should be “barrel fingerprinted.”
– Capn.
And then from there to banning evil “assault rifles;” after all, that’s only a “reasonable regulation” only a NRAddled mind could oppose. That person must be crazy; he should be barred from owning weapons immediately. Then it’s only a short step to banning all semi-automatic firearms; after all, they’re only designed to kill. It’s for the children.
The next logical “reasonable regulation” will be those those horrible “sniper rifles” (re: grandpa’s 30-06, kiddies). And then those weapons of mass carnage, shotguns, which do so much damage when they are used.
Of course, it will be necessary to bar knives, too. And icepicks. For the children, of course.
And with the State having a monopoly on weaponry, maintaining a proper modicum of control will be no effort at all. Just get in line, and do what you’re told, kiddies. 2nd Amendment? It’s a dead letter, doesn’t apply anymore. Remember, we have a LIVING Constitution, it doesn’t mean what it says, it means what we say it says. And with the pesky 2nd amendment out of the way, just imagine what we can do to get rid of that pesky 1st amendment . . . . can’t have those pesky subjects – er, I mean citizens – criticizing the State willy-nilly. It might cause unrest. Children might be hurt.
Thanks to you, Herr Capitan; or perhaps I should say Herr Kapitan. Seig Heil! I Love Big Brother. . . .
Nice, huh? And it all is wrapped up in the code words “reasonable regulation.”
Hmm GMC slips into a rant.
Capn, I never said where I lived or didn’t live. And why should JR care?
And then from there to banning evil “assault rifles;” after all, that’s only a “reasonable regulation” only a NRAddled mind could oppose.
. .rest of rant snip. . .
Ah, yes, our old friend, the slippery slope argument! Sometimes the slope is slippery, of course–but the person who makes such an argument has an obligation to demonstrate the supporting reasoning behind it. Otherwise, it’s just rhetoric.
Actually, GMC, as you well know, the phrase is “well-regulated.” Leaving aside all the other old arguments, what exactly is reasonable regulations of arms, by your reckoning, under the most generous interpretation of the Second Amendment?
Hey, just asking. I actually have considerable sympathy for the argument “If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.” But that doesn’t even come close to addressing the actual issue. Monkeyhawk’s reducto ad absurdum argument actually raised the correct issue (albeit without providing any answers): Where do you do draw the line(s)?
P.S. If anyone sees the above questions as attacks on anyone’s rights, I would suggest an Evelyn Wood course. :roll:
Draw the lines on the 1st Amendment by restricting all communication to what was available in the 1700’s.
Internet – gone
Email – gone
TV – gone
Radio – gone
Talk, write a letter, paper flyer, or publish a newspaper.
Rage, Rage, Rage:
Just when has the slope NOT been slippery? The entire history of firearms regulation has been a slippery slope, and for the most part running one way. Indeed, all of government is little but a slippery slope; governments ALWAYS assume more power, and NEVER give it up willingly. Once assumed, a larger gov’t will NEVER get small or less intrusive. Gov’t IS a slippery slope, my friend.
And this subject certainly fits that trend.
BTW – MH’s argument is not “reducto ad absurdum,” it was just plain absurd. We both know it, of course. If he (or you) do not understand the principles of liberties restricted following due process of law, you are farther gone than I would imagine.
Heh, nice evasion, GMC!
Just when has the slope NOT been slippery?
Even if true, that doesn’t answer my question. The remedy for “liberals” already exists–it’s called elections. And in all your rants I could find here, I don’t see any indication of what you regard as the proper contours of regulating arms, even under an NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.
If he (or you) do not understand the principles of liberties restricted following due process of law, you are farther gone than I would imagine.
Actually, prisoners have plenty of unalienable rights (such as First Amendment protections) under the Constitution, and, if one ignores the inconvenient militia clause (as NRA types repeatedly do), the Second Amendment is written in more absolutist terms than the First! The Fourth Amendment takes a beating in prison, of course, as “reasonable” searches are allowed, and it operates specifically in a law-enforcement context.
. . .but I digress, as you were hoping for, no doubt, to avoid the real issue. No dice. Answer my question: What exactly is reasonable regulation of arms, by your reckoning, under the most generous interpretation of the Second Amendment? You can rant endlessly about laws you don’t like, but, unless you support having a rocket launcher in every backyard, you have to have some type of Constitutional standard for regulation.
Incidently, the DC case (Heller, was it?), provides no coherent guidance in that matter either (no surprise, given the judges involved).
Isn’t it GMC who is always chiding me and others as overly conspiracy minded? Or overly concerned about the accumulation of the powers to the Executive?
Or a half dozen other subjects?
But boy get him going on guns and suddenly the ATF is under his bed, in his closets, and coming down the chimney!
Rage,
First of all, when you simply take the words “well regulated” from the second amendment you are forgetting what they were addressing:
Militia.
“A well regulated Militia” is the context.
So when you simply pull out “well regulated” and then try to say that it applies to individual gun ownership you are taking the words out of their context.
MonkeyHawks argument was not about asking where the line was drawn. His argument was about being absurd.
If you believe his argument is so sound, then lets hear your reasoning.
MonkeyHawk starts with a false premise that somehow the NRA types don’t think there are any reasonable regulations thus prisoners should have guns too.
Then you have CapnAmerica saying that if prisoners shouldn’t have guns then we should be banning a multitude of other weapons and people from owning them.
The leaps of logic are astounding and without any given reasoning at all.
Then you continue on with the ignorance in saying:
“NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”
Which is also blatantly false.
And then this:
“and, if one ignores the inconvenient militia clause (as NRA types repeatedly do)”
Which is blatantly false.
Both you and MonkeyHawk have to start with a strawman of what the NRA’s stance is and then jump to a completely absurd argument and then you sit here acting indignant because GMC70 is not answering your question.
Why don’t you start by not totally mischaracterizing those you are arguing against in asking your questions and then you might get an answer.
Nathan, same question: What standard do you use, under the Second Amendment, for regulating arms (and not just firearms, arms –even in 1787, that meant more than just guns. Or would you argue for no regulations at all?
It’s a fair question. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.
Sorry Rage, first things first.
After you aknowledge the strawman arguments and crap you posted about the NRA and the 2nd Amendment, then we can try to move onto a sensible discussion.
Before that, why should I answer your question?
You have shown no ability to be reasonable yet.
P.S. Looking at the NRA’s own site, their own fact sheet on the Second Amendment issues does, indeed, gratuitously ignore the militia clause. See for yourself:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=177
Hey Nathan?
You never did say.
What threats to your person do you imagine need dealing with at a range of 100 yards?
Nut.
P.S. This is the full extent of the opining on “well-regulated militia” found:
“This guarantees a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern — the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government.”
No mention–or acknowledgment–of what “well-regulated” meant.
. . .and the fact you won’t answer the question tells me you can’t answer it.
Rage,
First you go from saying the fact sheet ignored the clause to now posting a paragraph where they didn’t.
So, either way, you were wrong when you said that the NRA simply ignores the militia clause.
Now, that particular sheet might not clearly identify what the NRA thinks “well regulated” should mean, but that is an entirely different issue now.
That fact sheet could hardly be argued to be the ONLY piece of opinion information by the NRA.
So trying to claim that simply because that particular fact sheet doesn’t clearly describe what the NRA thinks about what “well regulated” should mean doesn’t prove anything about your claim that the NRA simply ignores that clause.
By the way, I didn’t say what your’re implying here:
“NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”
Which is also blatantly false.
I wasn’t even talking about the NRA.
Learn how to read.
Rage,
I won’t answer the question, because that would be simply ignoring the fact that your argument is based on a bunch of crap to begin with.
It is very typical debate style. You throw in a bunch of false premises in front of your question and then act indignant when I get hung up on addressing those false premises.
Sorry, I don’t play that game.
You still have one assertion left to take back or attempt to prove:
““NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”
Rage this is clearly what you typed:
“I don’t see any indication of what you regard as the proper contours of regulating arms, even under an NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”
What did you mean by posting:
“NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.”
I can read just fine.
Sigh. . .this is the full sentence:
And in all your rants I could find here, I don’t see any indication of what you regard as the proper contours of regulating arms, even under an NRA-approved interpretation of the Second Amendment–no test, no standards, nothing.
As you can plainly can see, I was commenting that I couldn’t find anywhere where GMC had laid out his view of what standards would apply to regulating arms under the Second Amendment.
And you accuse me of rhetorical tactics? I’ll generously assume you just read it wrong.
But I’ve got better things to do with my time than play this silly little back-and-forth game of yours.
I’m outta here.
Rage,
Fine, I’ll take it that you were not trying to say that the NRA had no test, no standards, nothing when it came to the 2nd Amendment.
You still have yet to explain your other comment saying the NRA ignored the “well regulated” clause.
If you don’t want to play the semantics game then don’t come in here with false semantics.
On top of that, if you don’t have time to clarify what you were saying, don’t pretend like you then have time to be indignant about our not answering a question you pose.
Good Bye.